Re: stupid dependencies on update-inetd
> I don't know exactly how it happened, but a large number of maintainers
> apparently ignored the discussions on this list and added to their
> packages a dependency on update-inetd.
Are you asking for a flamewar? I really don't see any justification for
beeing attacked by you in such a way.
The fact is simple: I don't read this list (lack of time and lack of
interest in flamepostings like yours), therefore i do not know about
any "discussions on this list" and therefore i didn't know that i did
wrong. So its an affront to accuse me of ignoring a discussion. Get
yourself some manners.
In fact i replaced the dependency on inetd with a dependency on
update-inetd some time ago because i felt this to be right we. I
even checked with the inetd-maintainer. My package needs the
update-inetd binary and depending on update-inetd surely seemed the
right way because my impression was that update-inetd would be the
new package to depend on when one needs update-ineted.
If you want to fix the situation, try to write a nicely worded advice
what to do. If you only want to spread flames, then f... off. I'm now
really pissed by our flame attempt, because i haven't done wrong really.
Regards
Michael
--
It's an insane world, but i'm proud to be a part of it. -- Bill Hicks
Reply to: