[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: package deviates from standard mail-transport-agent dependency.

> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 12:37:38AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Where did you discuss this mass filing of (useless) bugs before you
> > > submitted them?
> The previous discussions has lead nowhere. No use in discussing it yet
> again, instead it's time to act!
But mass-bug-filing without prior notice is no proper way to act.

> > 
> > In particular, these bugs are *contrary* to the developing consensus in the
> > thread at http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/05/msg00381.html ff.
> There where no consensus, since you where all just discussing overengineered
> solutions for solving the problem and all pointing out bugs in eachothers
> suggestions. Using exim4 | mail-transport-agent is the most
> straight-forward solution and will require minimal changes.

Solution to which problem? I completely fail to see a _problem_ here. Ok, not
all people get installed the same MTA -- so, what? If people care about the MTA
(like I do), they have their preferred MTA installed anyway.

> If people put as much effort into actually working on packages
> as they did on debating in useless threads that leads nowhere the
> distribution would be in a hell of alot better shape.
> Over and out.

Why don't you build your own CDD? So you don't need to discuss anything. Of
course, some discussions fail to reach consesus. This simply means that none of
the proposals has been good enough. Make a better _proposal_ and then according
to that. In this particular case, however, I'd even say that there has been some
consesus, just nobody stepped up to implement it. 


Attachment: pgp6h9c2YvHFB.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: