Re: Forwarded: RFC: New source packaging format
srivasta@datasync.com (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 23.10.97 in <87afg0wpyz.fsf@tiamat.datasync.com>:
> >>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
Ian>> I was flabbergasted last night when I saw that Jim had answered
Ian>> my 14-point `why-not' list point by point. That message was
Ian>> intended to terminate the discussion, not start one.
> How very patronizing. You decided that there need be no
> discussion on this, and you decided to end the discussion. I'm sorry,
> I do not find this acceptable behaviour.
I, on the other hand, see absolutely nothing wrong with Ian's comments.
Ian has certainly written questionable mails in the past, but his mails in
this thread are about as far from that as one can get.
> Had we not been waiting an eternity for any tangible movement
> on any issue related to dpkg, you might have had an excuse (not a
> justification, mind you, an excuse). Had you had time to address any
> of the multitudinous bug reports on your packages, there may have
> been reason to cede you god-like powers on the list. Just authoring
> dpkg is not enough.
>
> And you need to offer something more than opinions when you
> say you find a design flawed. (I think it is rude to say that to an
> initial RFC, but I've given up on polite discourse with you).
Pot. Kettle.
> I don't think Jim would be oppposed to a better technical
> solution, or people pointing to flaws in design that were more than
> mere opinions.
Jim already proved you wrong in both points.
MfG Kai
Reply to: