[repo-coord] Re: Blackmailing ...

[Axel Thimm]

On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 12:48:50PM +0200, Bert de Bruijn wrote:
> On Thu, 6 May 2004, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > So what is the purpose of obsolting uncommon names. Doing just for
> > sports is a lame excuse.
> 
> Axel,
> I asked you to please stick to the point. Is this a "no !" ?

A no to what question? There wasn't any in the mail I replied to.

To summarize:
o I don't succumb to any blackmailing. I feel that this is not the way
  to negotiate anything.
o I had already written months ago that replacing kmdl vs
  kernel-module is not an issue for me, using the broken versioning
  scheme is.
o I wrote today that I will let atrpms-devel decide on the above
  (cosmetic) issue.
o The question is not whether Dag has the best solution in the world,
  but how he is enforcing it upon the community.

Does that answer the question you are referring to?

> If you want to explain to the world why other people do what they do, 
> write a column somewhere. If you want to find a solution, stop it. 
> Dag didn't say "I obsolete uncommon names just for sports". At least, not 
> on this list (these lists).
> 
> > Please stop obsoleting other repo's packages if you want to remain
> > compatible.
> 
> If you would have left out all the crap preceding this sentence, it would 
> have been a fairly sensible post.

You are getting insulting yourself, too, if I may notice. ;)

OK, let's try again:

"Dag, please do stop obsoleting packages from other repos."

> Axel, Dag, can at least one of you be the gentleman and engage in a 
> discussion that heads towards a solution WITHOUT personal banter, 
> slander, insinuations, needless rhetoric, ...

Bert, looking in a very soberly manner at the situation, we have two
maintainers of repos, of which one decided to explicitely obsolete the
other's packages that were not conforming to his
policies/guidelines. As such the solutions are

a) the other maintainer succumbs and conforms to the policy
b) the maintainer employing the obsoletes backs off from these
   questionable tactics.

Furthermore the critisism is not on the contents of different
approaches, but on the methods employing them.

Bert, I hope this is a fair and non-emotional analysis, don't you
agree?
-- 
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/20040506/079b0ccb/attachment-0001.bin