Re: what's up with all the attitude
On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 11:47:40PM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:
> Pollywog wrote:
> >On Monday 06 November 2006 03:47, Kent West wrote:
> >>ChadDavis wrote:
> >>>But what's with all the attitude people flash around here.
> >>We're people; people are imperfect.
> >It's nothing the Debian developers can't fix ;)
>
> ... In time for all us users to file many many bug reports against the "human" package, which
> will be deemed "unfixable" by the package maintainer and become Orphaned forever with only the
> critical bugs fixed (hopefully) before each release.
>
> That is, of course, if we can even find a DD who's brave enough to do an ITP on the package
> after someone files a Wishlist bug to have it built.
>
> And it's highly likely due to the complexity of the Author's upstream source for creating the
> human software, that there's some hidden problems deeply rooted in the fact that even though
> human is relatively easy to dissect, it's difficult to understand what the code is doing
> and/or going to do, which makes the Security team's job very difficult...
>
> And there's likely to be debates over which license the human is operating under... commonly
> known as "religions" in end-user terms.
>
> Once all this came to light, Debian would likely have to pull human from the main branch and
> either carry human only in contrib or not at all, depending on the licensing used and whether
> or not there were enough developers that believe that our DNA is all the source code needed
> to consider "human" DSFG-Free.
>
> Of course there's always the possibility that the non-Free aspects of human could be removed
> and the package, while mostly crippled and unusable, and with a new stupid(er) name would be
> allowed to remain in main.
>
> :-) :-) :-)
>
> Nate
Buahahaha :)))
Regards,
Andrei
--
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
(Albert Einstein)
Reply to: