Re: Official Exim 4 package
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 10:30:44AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:36:29 -0600
> Jamin Collins <jcollins@asgardsrealm.net> wrote:
> > Great, I'll get right on that. Oh wait, there no indication of how.
> > Sure, we can just "change" the packaging system. However, there's a
> > *lot* more to it than just waiving a magic wand or hacking a few
> > lines of code. Someone would need to come up with system (including
> > the internal mechanics) that denotes how this could/should be done.
>
> Amazingly enough that's how problems get solved.
>
> Step 1: admitting there is a problem.
I don't necessarily see a problem. The current situation works (quite
well really). Could it be better, probably. Is it currently "broken"?
No.
> Step 2: defining the problem.
I've provided a viable solution that works within the existing
framework. You simply don't like it.
> Or is this where you, and others, pop out of the woodwork and demand
> that said person either shush or sit down and code? I've never much
> liked the culture where problems, when pointed out, result in a
> silencing of the person pointing it out simply because they, for one
> reason or another, are either unwilling or incapable of tackling the
> problem.
I'm not asking you to code the solution from start to finish. I'm just
indicating that you should at least develop a frame work, something more
than "change X" or "rework X". Both of these are extremely vague. I
*have* provided an option that will work. If you don't like it (which
you obviously don't), I consider the ball to be in your court. Come up
with an alternate solution. Yes, that means that some work will need to
be done by you (or someone for you). However, since you seem to be the
one that dislikes the current method, seems fair to me.
> It doesn't make the problem go away.
--
Jamin W. Collins
Reply to: