On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 11:34:20PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > Except the two mipsel buildds here - well, who cares anyways? I generated keys for all buildds on my laptop back then. But then other people are also approaching me with "hey, I think something broke, can you have a look" instead of insulting me. > I would be happy with going on with 0.60.0 unless there are issues why > we need to use 0.61.0 - and I think I said so in the IRC channel more > than once. That would have saved us as well the issues that we have > with lenny hosts plus buildd-0.61, and also the user env not being > defined anymore. Stability is some value in running a core service. True enough. There was also a solution for the Lenny hosts that could've been incorporated into the package? I wonder why that didn't happen. > > And no, I don't break stuff "for fun". I was also pissed off by this change > > but I do understand the reason. It's not pretty but meh, apt surely gives > > a damn about usability here. > I didn't say that *you* broke them for *fun* - but the net result is > obviously that there are changes that break working, existing configs > for no good reason. It's really sad to see that happening, and it > annoys me much. I would like to read at least some "I'm sorry that > this happend" - same as I say when I break something and put work on > or annoy other people. Oh I apologized in the channel often enough. I also fixed all issues that where raised to me. The key one is by design and I would've prefered it in the postinst to ensure continuous operation. KiBi vetoed automatic key generation in #607945 which I find a tad more unsuitable. Kind regards Philipp Kern
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature