Re: Packaging quality
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:01:46PM +0000, Pigeon wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 09:31:09AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 09:56:03PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 08:02:02PM +0000, Pigeon wrote:
> > > > I say this because I've just broken a remote box doing an apt-get
> > > > upgrade - security upgrades to woody - which Isn't Supposed To Happen.
> > > > Don't know exactly how, because ssh is one of the things that broke...
> > >
> > > Is it just me, or has package quality been suffering since the
> > > developers had to start tracking three versions instead of two, making
> > > up to 33 packages of the same software, one for each version on each
> > > architecture (instead of up to 22)?
> >
> > I don't believe that that has a significant effect: firstly, it's not
> > significant effort to keep track of, and secondly, most developers don't
> > bother to keep track of what's running on other architectures all that
> > often. I can certainly personally guarantee you that it has absolutely
> > no effect on ssh.
> >
> > If you track down a specific problem with ssh (as opposed to random
> > sniping about package quality), I'll be more than happy to fix it as
> > best I can.
>
> I'm not sniping, I'm just puzzled.
I know you weren't; I was referring to Paul's remark about package
quality, which came right out of left field.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: