Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian
Steve Greenland <steveg <at> moregruel.net> writes:
> Like it or not, your software fits very much into the role played
> by XMMS, such that someone who likes XMMS is more likely to choose
> Audacious than, say, Rythymbox. That's why it's being discussed as a
> "replacement". If we remove XMMS from the distribution, we have some
> obligation to point users at similar tools.
> Since you obviously modeled Audacious on XMMS (via BMP), I'm not sure
> why you find such comparisons offensive.
Because every time distros try to do an xmms->audacious migration on us,
it causes additional load on our development effort because people file
bug reports and demand that we behave exactly like XMMS.
I don't find the comparison offensive, I find the result of the comparison
offensive, which is people dictating to us how our project will work. I cannot
work efficiently under those conditions, and I don't suspect anyone else
could either. So, it becomes a PR nightmare for us.
That's why I take offense and ask for very strong clarification that we are
not cloning XMMS to the letter. That's what "XMMS clone" means to these people.