On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 22:13:17 +0100, Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 13:15 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Mere aesthetics are probably not a good enough reason for new
>> policy requirements -- this belongs in developers reference, at
>> best.
> And thus the bureaucratic dead end is reached.
Fuck no. You are the one who resorted to bureaucratic
shennaigans to convince dpkg maintainers to change the way it works,
rather than trying and convince them that your way is right.
Policy is not a way to make other people do what you think is
right by beating them on the head. Your complaint, really, is that
the bureaucrats did not jump up and say how high on your command, but
insisted that normal channels be used to resolve this.
manoj
--
This is a test of the emergency broadcast system. Had there been an
actual emergency, then you would no longer be here.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
