-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 07/10/2010 07:40 PM, Ian Jackson wrote: > Earlier you said this: > > Making a 23.0 release with nothing other > than *broken* patches does not give [lilo a future] > > Ie, you implied that that was what Joachim has done. However, now you > agree that he has done some good things. Exaggerating the alleged > misdeeds of the people you are having a disagreement with does not do > you any favours. > >> > - adds patches from Fedora and OpenSuSE >> > (without explaining rationale for adding the patches, most of the >> > patches 'work around' bugs rather than correcting the actual design >> > faults); > Would you care to give an example ? I appreciate it might be too much > work for us all to go through every such patch and have you explain in > detail what the real problem is and why the applied patch is not > correct. But I think you should be able to point to an example or > two. > >> > - fixes bugs that are already fixed in Debian 22.8 sources. > Surely that is exactly one of the things an upstream maintainer should > be doing ? > >> > - changes elements of the buildsystem that do not need to be changed; > That seems like a bikeshed issue to me. >
Hello: Just in case i get another eye infection, and am unable to respond. Here is a concise summary of my views on the issue. If that happens and the TC needs more insight as to why I haven't been involved. Ian may forward them the aforementioned private e-mail William is right on that patch. That is a horrid way to comment an assembly language statement (no offense intended). But what does it show about Joachim'squalifications. I know I am probably not as well versed as i should bein lilo's internals but I know more than the average bear about x86 real mode assembly, as I spent better part of six months almost exclusively coding in it. although I have not done anything as complex as a bootloader before I stand a reasonable chance of doing this right. William is without question more qualified, though I think this exchange shows why I'm backing Joachim. It is not as William supposes my desire for brownie points, though in the interest of honesty being a DD has been a goal of mine ever since i first read the SC at 14, and therefore anything which advances that goal is a good thing to do. However in this instance that is not the motivating reason. My motivation is the fact that I know that for a fairly substantial number of users lilo works, and other loaders don't. Why interfere with that if we don't have too. I'd oppose the removal of loadlin for the same reasons, there are users who need it because other bootloaders don't work for their bios, with their keyboard, or whatever (although in the particular case of loadlin I'm given to understand that it is the only bootloader with screen reader support, but this is not the point). My point is for whatever reason about 2,500 people have chosen lilo as bootloader over extlinux, grub, etc. A bootloader is a critical part of the overall system, and just arbitrarily, yanking one because some Debian Contributer, no matter how smart/qualified he may be doesn't like it i s dangerous. In my way of thinking that is even more dangerous then having someone green at the wheel (if you'll pardon the expression). That is the reason why I oppose what William intends to do, and have always opposed it. If/When lilo falls out of use I will reconsider my stance on this but for now that is the bottom line. /Matt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkw5GXUACgkQfGeS0kace82X7wCeL928SoJvSMbVFpc783ah7jmJ oaUAn1pS00+prjzQzBmUpI6LY7VL7UAE =cRas -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org