Hey Mark and the gang; A comment is inserted in *one* place below:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:53:29 -0500 > Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Like someone above stated, Arch doesn't get in the way. So please >> make sure the users don't get in the way either. > > I have only seen one user getting in the way in this thread, simply > rejecting any suggestions from anybody except developers and tu's > (and preferrably tell them how useless they were while at it.) I have > absolutely no clue why and how that user ever became a trusted one. He > can't have been acting like this all of the time for sure. > >> This is not your distro, this is Judd's. As with most OSS projects, >> it was made to "scratch an itch" - if you have a different "itch", >> scratch it yourself. > > I agree, although I think you're sucking up to him. > >> I stated it before - quit whining and do something about it. This >> discussion is reminiscent of the old days with ...ahem.... someone who >> is no longer here. The best thing I ever heard about that person is >> "He's contributed alot to arch.... alot of unwavering opinions". >> Don't be that guy. Don't sit back and complain without at least >> trying to do *something*. If you want something changed, then change >> it. Your mommy doesn't live here, and *I'm* certainly not going to do >> your laundry for you. > > I don't know how you've avoided seeing it, but the topic has clearly > stated "pacman wishlist" throughout the thread. Perhaps you were too > busy yelling "NO!" at other users' suggestions. > > Nobody has asked you to do anything. Actually I'd prefer if you didn't, > because you seem as a very combative person and so far, your input in > the thread has been highly unconstructive. Besides, considering your > contributions to pacman so far (NULL), I doubt you have the skill to > actually implement anything. In point of fact the people making these requests wanted docs to be included as part of a binary package as distributed by the arch repos. (Albeit they might not have said so as succinctly as that.) As such, it was a request for someone else (dev and tus) to do something to please somebody(s) desires. As such that may be o.k., but in this case it involved much more that you are not considering. And the beef from where I sit is that the "request" was against Arch policy. Until I mentioned it as such; this point was not being discussed as part of the issue these request would involve. i.e It is hardly a simple request when it amounts to a reversal of the doctrines this distro was founded on. ALSO these requests to the devs and tus to recompile their packages to include docs, (and by default also requires they look into docs issues they have otherwise NOT had to look at), *does* require more workload for the devs and tus. This is not necessarily a trivial amount of additional care in packaging either. ALL of the above has been mentioned in this thread, yet you seem to be ignoring it. It might well be better to take note of them, as these points ARE what the devs and tus will have to consider, if they take ANY time to consider these requests. Finally, you guys making requests NEED to make them with the recognition of both the distros' aims and rules in account, or at least be friendly to them when pointed out. Whining is NOT a good way to endear yourselves to those who take the time and effort to package. Foul language or name calling is also not appropriate. <- Perhaps this is why many of the devs have chosen to ignore this thread. Perhaps those of you who are behaving this way should take a few moments and show some more character development. Conversely I applauder those of you that have shown the good taste to not engage in critiques of other's abilities and thoughts while asking or requesting changes. Very best regards; Bob Finch > >> Christ. It's one complaint after another. First pacman is wrong and >> broken and *must* include all these features that could be done in >> about 10 lines of shell script and will probably be used by no one >> except the original poster. > > The thread started out as a wishlist. I have yet to see anybody require > anything. IIRC you actually seemed to agree on one of the wishes, but > that of course was before I said that you were being stupid when > comparing PKGBUILD integration of post_install() & friends to make one > file out of the entire /proc tree. > > Please stop carrying to extreme in every comparison you do, as it > easily pisses people off which leads to useless and angry replies. > >> Second, we need documentation (old hat, as Bob said) which is stricly >> against the Arch "Mission Statement" (stealing verbage from iphitus) - >> why not go all they way against it, we'll switch it to i386 >> optimized and use slapt-get and patch everything all to hell! > > I don't think this one is for me. However: > > Please stop carrying to extreme in every comparison you do, as it > easily pisses people off which leads to useless and angry replies. > >> And now, as if there wasn't enough cruft in this ML thread, we have to >> go and complain about KDE artwork. > > That was a small complaint, but it was only mentioned as an example of > places where the Arch "Mission Statement" are completely ignored > without any serious reason but still are widely accepted. > >> It's almost like you people are looking for something to complain >> about. > > (Repeating of line 4:) > >> Like someone above stated, Arch doesn't get in the way. > > That someone was me, so I don't think the above is true. > > By writing wishlist in the subject of both this thread and all four > Flyspray tasks (which ofcourse was marked as feature requests) I kinda > hoped it wouldn't be taken as complaints. I'm sorry that it did. > > > Yours truly, > > Mark _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
