Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix typos and inaccuracies in docs and examples.
> > Those are leftover from my http://bugs.debian.org/630314 patch. Given
> > their nature, I suppose you overlooked them ?
>
> No. I did not. I explained why those were not accepted in the bug
> report.
Oh...
> From: Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org>
> To: 630314-quiet@bugs.debian.org
Ah. So you intentionally left me out of the recipients. Please first
learn to use the BTS, and add NNNN-submitter@b.d.o when you want
people to read you. If you want to, that is.
Also please don't remove me from CC when replying to this thread, I'm
not subscribed to this list.
> Subject: rejecting parts of the patch
> Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 16:19:17 +0100
>
> The device table part of the patch is simply wrong. (That's why there
> are two lines.)
OK. Please show me a machine with a Debian system recent enough to be
meaningful, that ships /dev/hda0.
That said, I admit I did not try to run the script to check if it was
acting the way I understood it should. Let's double-check:
#<name> <type> <mode> <uid> <gid> <major> <minor> <start> <inc> <count>
# /dev/hda b 640 0 0 3 0 0 0 -
# /dev/hda b 640 0 0 3 1 1 1 15
OK, so "start=1 inc=1 count=15" will produce 16 entries counting from 0 ?
Sorry, but I don't want to even attempt to decypher the code that
performs such a calculation.
> Other changes are too inconsequential for words, let alone a bug report
> but done anyway as part of the normal run.
Ah. I did not think I would have to waste my time going into such
detail, but since you're obviously not showing any good will...
Please note BTW that I appreciate the irony of your former accusations
on IRC of me wasting your own time.
> Priority: important can only operate for all sections listed in the
> -C<boostrap> option. This may cause some confusion when mixing suites.
> +C<bootstrap> option. This may cause some confusion when mixing suites.
Wow, is that really the word's spelling ? Thanks for the spelling
lesson, man - I'll go to bed tonight maybe a bit upset, but much more
knowledgeable. May I suggest then that you use some "grep -r
bootstrap" on the multistrap source, and fix those obvious spelling
errors that I missed previously ?
> One advantage of using machine:variant support is that the entire
> rootfilesystem can be managed by a single call to multistrap - this
> -is useful when building root filesystems in userspace.
> +is useful when building root filesystems as non-priviledged user.
OK, so I have probably also misunderstood how multistrap works at all.
So usually it also works in *kernel space* ? Wow, now *that* is inovation.
> > If patches to the pod/manpage are not the prefered way to ship
> > documentation within the package, I'm open to suggestions. Debian
> > tools usually use Docbook, but that's a bit heavyweight on the doc
> > writer. What about Asciidoc ?
>
> Use the Wiki as already requested numerous times.
It is a bit of a problem, that my previous mail to attempt to bring
the situation in a workable state bounced (I did attempt to explain my
stance there), so I just re-sent it for the record. Please look for
it in the "Debian Social Contract" thread.
> Your changes are inconsequential, inaccurate and unacceptable.
Please, stop making fun of yourself, this is getting ridiculous.
And stop wasting the time of potential contributors. Such a behaviour
is no less than a brake to the adoption of Embedded Debian, does not
represent the Debian project by any means, shows complete
disrespect for the other developers which have put work in Embedded
Debian, and can only scare potential contributors away.
--
Yann
Reply to: