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

[Axel Thimm]

On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 02:58:49AM +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Wed, 5 May 2004, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > First of all, the versioning of the kernel-modules is *still*
> > > not decided. [...]

> > So, at least you admit it is "undecided". Why do you obsolete foreign
> > packages from other repos then?
> 
> The versioning was undecided imo, the naming was not. Unless you want 
> unanimous decisions. We never ever decided anything unanimous.

When did the decision take place? I hope it is somewhere on a list you
can point me at?

And still, the matter about the naming is not the issue, your methods
of policy enforcement is. Even if your policy would have been
flawless, you should still not simply obsolete other people's
policies.

> I wasn't manipulating the data, I counted: bttv, cx88, ivtv, lirc, 
> ltmodem, madwifi, saa7134, video4linux.
> 
> I noticed I missed forcedeth. Anyway, rpm -qa isn't really a good 
> indication either.

You are missing a whole lot more, or maybe you only looked at the
"stable" repo.

> Once again I hate to see this discussion again, because we already had 
> this one:
> 
> 	http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/repo-coord/2004-March/000098.html

which is a great quote as the next replies show.

> What if I did the same as you ? I could lower your priorities to make 
> everything work. Or disable whatever I want without noticing anyone.

But you decided to obsolete ATrpms' packages without noticing
anyone. Hm, I cannot follow you here, I would consider your obsoletes
far more intrusive than anything else you are mentioning. After all
ATrpms' priority settings is a %config(noreplace) file, so diverting
from the standard shipped configuration is very easy for any
user. Rebuilding your packages to remove the obsoletes is not.

And you were noticed about the breakage and didn't want to fix it.

> You claim to be compatible, but the first thing anyone encounters adding 
> your repository is that their repository configuration is replaced by 
> whatever you have configured. Only one repository does that, atrpms.

Please explain that. How does your setup differ???

> Once again you point to that bugzilla entry to make your case, I'm not 
> impressed.

I think you are, otherwise you wouldn't be cutting it out of all your
replies ;)

> 	> you couldn't care less for compatibility, you went wild.
> 
> That's not really true, you're insinuating. Where did I go wild ? I was 
> pretty bored about the way you handled things. Reopening bugs.

I was referring to the bginning of this discussion thread, where you
started tagging me as harassing you.

> You also stated that I take things personally ?

Yes, I have no other rational explanation for your actions.

> Worst of all, I hate to discuss this in public

Hm, I can only quote again that in the bugzilla entry which you didn't
want to resolve you closed with

     > I really hate abusing bugzilla for discussions. There should be the option:
     > "Mark bug as UNDECIDED, DISCUSSION ON LIST".

> I'm sure you'll have a list ready of things I've said. But it's not
> in my nature and it's not very nice.

I have no list of your quotes, I just have a good memory and believe
what people tell or write me.

> Good night, I have no time for these endless discussions. This is
> worse than the initial discussions with fedora.us. If the goals of
> fedora.us weren't so much different I'd probably already submitted
> the whole lot of packages there, now that they seem to getting up to
> speed and more reasonable.

Yes, I agree about this discussion not going forward, but what has
fedora.us got to do with this? And as a side note, I hope the
fedora.us QA guidelines forbid versionless obsoletes, so that would
fix the problem anyway. :)

> Stop this madness please. I already regret having used your bugzilla only 
> to see you're throwing stuff in my face.

> Friends don't do that. I suppose we are not friends.

Nobody is trying to attack you, Dag. Please just remove the
unneccessary obsoletes, whose sole purpose it is to break other repos.
(or name me another reason for you inserting them in there).

Friends don't do that either, Dag.

Please fix the breakage and we can try to discuss the kernel module
policies in peace and without enforcement methods? Don't do that for
the sake of friendship, do that for the sake of the community.
-- 
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/20040505/59d12622/attachment.bin