[repo-coord] Re: Blackmailing ...
Axel.Thimm at atrpms.net
Thu May 6 12:14:06 CEST 2004
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 11:21:21AM +0200, Bert de Bruijn wrote:
> On Thu, 6 May 2004, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 04:39:10AM +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
> > > On Wed, 5 May 2004, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > *Sigh*, which brings us back to where we were at the beginning.
> I can not understand why you put so much energy in keeping this discussion
> spinning around without result.
> Please, keep your requests to the point.
> That point seems to be "Dag, your package A obsoletes my package B. This
> prevents end users to use both our repositories. What shall we do to solve
> this ?"
and also add that this obsoleting is technically totally
unneccessary. It only serves to explicitly break the compatibility!
even if Dag's proposed solution were the best next to Nutella (I hate
sliced bread), his methods are what I criticize.
> Am I right in my observation that you put this off as "the
> solution depends on a common naming/versioning of kernel module rpms" ?
> There's got to be a more creative solution to this. Please break the
> Please, focus on the end result: usability of package repo's by end users.
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/repo-coord/attachments/20040506/ecf75444/attachment.bin
More information about the repo-coord