Re: Forwarded: RFC: New source packaging format
Hi,
>>"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.
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).
I, too, am not convinced that the project should jump up and
adopt Jim's proposal. However, I think the project needs to move on
this front, and I mean something more than talk and opinions. At
least Jim had a working proposal (I lke non-vapourware proposals);
the least we can do is listen to him, and see if we can work from
there.
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.
manoj
seething
--
I used to be indecisive; now I'm not sure. Graffiti
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Reply to: