On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 04:45:55PM +0200, Markus Frosch wrote:
> > I would hence ask you to explain a bit better why you think APT is wrong
> > and provide an example which actually shows these characteristics.
> > Otherwise I will apparently be a tiny bit annoyed by this thread.
>
> Why so passive aggressive here? I asked for help and tried to explain in a
> short and simple way.
Frankly, I was just honest as this thread-style annoys the heck out of me,
but I guess I could have worded that a bit differently to make more obvious
what I mean. So, let me explain where my anger comes from:
You started with:
| not sure if this has been discussed elsewhere, but I recently noticed
| a change in APTs lookup for Recommends. Maybe also for other dependencies.
So, you "asked for help", but not in debugging APT or related, but in finding
where this change/bug in APT is discussed, providing your opinion on why the
change should be fixed/reverted ("policy", "wide spread usage") and asking
others to join in ("What are your thoughts on that?" [that = the change]).
Or in other words: You were asking for help in forming a mob to force the bad
apt devs into behaving (slightly exaggerated for effect).
That your example is both not showing the described problem and easy to
reason about showing that the bug you have postulated doesn't exist is
"just" icing on the "It is obviously APTs fault" cake.
It isn't what you meant to say of course, but you would be surprised how often
that style is used rather than the intended "I have no idea why APT does that
here, could someone please explain it?".
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature