[repo-coord] Re: Zero-tolerance educational methods for promoting questionable policies???

[Axel Thimm]

On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 12:58:31AM +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Tue, 4 May 2004, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > The discussion is about Dag blessing a scheme as a standard and
> > forcing other repos to either go with his scheme, or not be
> > coexistable. Technically speaking he is obsoleting other people's
> > packages.
> 
> Mind you that you're still messing things up. First of all, the versioning 
> of the kernel-modules is *still* not decided. [...]
> Both Matthias and I have objected to it because it is counter-intuitive, 
> confusing and just plain ugly. Contrary to what you may think, I don't 
> object to the idea technically.

So, at least you admit it is "undecided". Why do you obsolete foreign
packages from other repos then?

> However the issue here is the naming of kernel modules (almost everybody 
> agreed on using kernel-module-<name> for kernel modules and <name>-utils 
> for extra module-specific utilities). I'll make a list of repositories 
> with kernel-modules:
> 
> 	kernel-module-<name>:
> 		freshrpms (1 package)
> 		dag (22 packages)
> 		fedora.us (2 official, more non-official)
> 
> 	<name>-kmdl:
> 		atrpms (8 packages)
> 
> 	<name>-kernel
> 		planetccrma (1 package)

Cool counting. "My repo is bigger than the others, so I must be
right"? And where did you get those numbers?

# rpm -qa '*kmdl*' | wc -l
     20

ATrpms has more than 20 kmdls and half a dozen of core kernel patches
(not that numbers matter, but you seem to care.

> Axel likes to badmouth me, and he's done a good job today by trying to 
> isolate me.

Sorry Dag, but that is all your own accomplishment. You got upset
about ATrpms giving you a lower priority because you broke
compatibility. You started with requesting more communication, and
when presented with the fact that communication had taken already
place 2 months ago (http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=69) and
you couldn't care less for compatibility, you went wild.

> I don't see how that would help in resolving any outstanding 
> issues. If you look at the latest posts in a reply to me, you'll notice 
> how he keeps repeating the slander, even when I remove them in my reply.

while true; do
  beg Dag to fix the breakage;
done

> I'm trying very hard to ignore all the insinuations and false accusations, 

Please quote, otherwise the above is in itself both. I have only
quoted facts.

> That's what I called public harrassment before. (Look at the subject
> alone) If you disagree and want to resolve issues, that's not what
> you do.

No, you start with kindly asking Dag to fix things. Even when he
closes bugs as WONTFIX, INVALID or assigns the bug to me, w/o any
further comments you still try to find a peaceful solution:

http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=69

When everything one can try has been tried you seek for ways to fix
the situation like the workaround in apt's priorities.

> I'll make it very simple, if Axel adheres to the kernel-module-naming 
> standard and you can convince Matthias about the kernel-module-versioning, 
> I'll implement the kernel versioning too.

And the pope goes singing, and the pigs start flying.

I am not trying to convince you to do things differently, it is your
right, to do as you thing best. But it is different if you
*explicitely break* other people repositories, because there is no
other use for your agressive obsoletes methods besides trying to
enforce/educate other people to do things your way.

So I still close with the same overly repeated plea to fix your
packages to not break other repos.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/repo-coord/attachments/20040505/45cf1f59/attachment.bin