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

Re: [Pkg-dns-devel] Bug#833309: "Browserified" stuff (knot-resolver-module-http: please package embedded epoch.js separately)

On October 20, 2016 7:15:45 PM EDT, Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Joerg Jaspert writes ("Re: [Pkg-dns-devel] Bug#833309: "Browserified"
>stuff (knot-resolver-module-http: please package embedded epoch.js
>> On 14466 March 1977, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>> > If you insist I can add build.sh script to the missing-source, but
>> No, you do not put it in missing-source foo. You use it during the
>> of your package, thats the correct thing to do.
>I agree almost completely.  (You missed out an apostrophe.)
>> > that's a new information for me that we are now doing distro
>> > just for hipsters that can't read and write more than one twitter
>> > message at the time, and can't read a simple makefile.
>> [You] forgot later updates to the package not done by you. There is
>> no reason why a security team should have to learn the above steps.
>> should edit the source and just build the package and that should do
>> right thing.
>I agree - modulo your use of an insult, which I have redacted (see
>> Not needing to dig up whatever crap may be needed for
>> todays hip sillyscript transformation.
>However, I think this kind of language is is really beyond the pale at
>least for debian-devel.  If you want to rant like that please keep it
>to places where the people you are insulting are absent.
>I recommend bars.  (Having just got back from the pub myself, where we
>had some good times ranting about various crap.)

It would be nice if the language police could give it a rest.  Personally, I don't see that as being significantly different than "signed image malarkey" (to quote from another thread).

Scott K

Reply to: