On 08/20/2014 10:55 AM, Ondřej Surý wrote: > So instead of improving the default debian template and fixing it for > everyone you just fixed the issue in your own code. That's not the way > we are ought to do the packaging....
instead of assuming bad faith, you could go with what really happened: i was sort-of forced to abandon the perfectly working lxc-debconfig template which was at that time installed as lxc-debian (so it was working for everyone using the debian package), and was sort-of commanded to not touch upstreams lxc-debian at all. for me personally, upstreams lxc-debian is hardly usuable for many reasons (no preseed support, unclean chroot building, unsafe defaults), and since fixing it is very "intrusive" (as indicated above) changes on it supposed to end up in the debian package need to happen in upstream first. as things are, doing this upstream is time consuming, therefore this ongoing process of making upstreams lxc-debian somewhat usuable is not finished and this explains why things are as they are right now. -- Address: Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern Email: daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net Internet: http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
