On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 05:03:28PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 05:14:24PM +0000, Robert Millan wrote: > > > The reason is that (as usual) we're coping with a work that doesn't belong > > to us. If a package depends on a linux-specific one, this is the package > > maintainer (or the Linux-based ports maintainers) who should take care about > > it. > > Adopting a hardline philosophical attitude will not endear you or the > projects you're associated with to the rest of the Debian community.
Your pretension that I "adopt a hardline attitude" is irrelevant to the discussion (asides from unfoundated). > Taking a pragmatic attitude now will make it far easier to do it > properly in the long term. You criticise my pragmatic attitude while standing at the same level of pragmatism. Have you done any effort to fix arch-handling properly in dpkg? > Yes, in an ideal world Debian wouldn't be > Linux-centric - however, it is, and the fact that the Linux ports are > the only ones in an even vaguely releasable state gives them a > significant degree of priority. This is an arbitrary claim. From my POV, Debian GNU/KFreeBSD is as near from a releaseable state than Debian AMD64, not to mention Debian SH which is almost stalled. -- Robert Millan "[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work." -- J.R.R.T, Ainulindale (Silmarillion)
