Hello Andreas, [ I've removed 340462 from further follow-ups ] On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 09:08:58AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Anand Kumria (wildfire@progsoc.uts.edu.au) [060207 04:03]: > > Considering that volatile only useful package is (potentially) clamav > > and that only if you are disconnected I'd say you are better off > > rebuilding the package yourself and never using volatile. > > I would prefer if you stop telling lies about volatile. You can believe whatever you want to believe. I've done my analysis; I posted it publically. If there were obvious flaws in it, I'm sure you would have jumped upon them. From the lack of any kind of response I have to assume I have things correct. > You behave like you are a kid in a sand-box and now want to destroy > someones else sand-castle because it looks nicer than yours. This is > *not* the way things should work in Debian. That analogy is like a leaky screwdriver. What I'm doing is pointing out that volatile is a good idea executed poorly -- the execution is poor enough that there is no inherent value in volatile at this time. You seem offended that that I'm pointing out that the idea is poorly executed upon. There are a couple of ways to react: - move to rectify the (perceived or actual) problem - ignore things and hope I'll go away - respond with (attempted) insults You've done the last of those, I'm hopeful that you'll find the first one more profitable and rewarding. Anand -- `When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives' -- Robert A Heinlein, "If this goes on --"
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature