Re: Debian Multi-Media.
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 03:46:27PM EST, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 02/23/2011 01:50 PM, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:34:05 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
>>> On 02/23/2011 11:16 AM, Camaleón wrote:
>>
>>>> Shouldn't D-M maintainers post here about any problem on the repos
>>>> or widespread a bit more what is going on?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> "Should"???
>>>
>>> It would be *nice* and it would be *helpful* to do so, but seeing
>>> that neither you nor I are paying him for the time, effort,
>>> bandwidth, etc, those who still use oldstable should just be glad
>>> that he's doing it.
>>
>> I think you misunderstood my words... or maybe I didn't chose the
>> right ones.
>>
>> I wasn't saying that they *should* provide _packages_ for oldstable
>> releases but *notify* here -in this same mailing list, where people
>> can then spread those changes elsewhere- for any update in D-M
>> repositories.
>>
>
> Yes, it would be nice and useful.
>
> However, the word "should" in English expresses (in gcide's words)
> "moral obligation", and Christian Marillat is under no moral
> obligation to do so. Merriam-Webster uses the similar phrase "express
> obligation, propriety, or expediency".
Hm.. Camaléon used the ‘interro-negative’ form: ‘shouldn't’..
Quite different from an affirmative ‘should’..
Take for instance:
‘Shouldn't we ban OT'ers and nitpickers from the list?’¹
I don't see much (if any) moral obligation involved in the above.. or
expediency.. or propriety..?
Rather a suggestion that so doing might be a good idea. Not essentially
different from ‘Don't you think we should ban...’
When I read it, I felt Camaléon meant ‘What do you guys think?’.. rather
than suggest that the DM team was under any obligation to keep us posted
with regard to their progress.
Yes..? No..?
cj
¹ A purely rhetorical question ;-)
Reply to: