(Oops, I sent this to debian-devel by mistake. I think it belongs on debian-policy, so I'm sending it here now.)
Majoj (SuperCite undone): > [Ian Jackson:] > > I was flabbergasted last night when I saw that Jim had answered > > my 14-point `why-not' list point by point. That message was > > intended to terminate the discussion, not start one. > > How very patronizing. You decided that there need be no > discussion on this, and you decided to end the discussion. I'm sorry, > I do not find this acceptable behaviour. What ?! I just said I didn't _want_ to have an argument about it. You think I was trying to suggest that I have some authority to force the discussion to terminate ? Well, I wasn't trying to suggest that. I was just saying I thought the discussion unhelpful and wanted it to finish. Surely this is just as reasonable a position as you telling me not to post things you don't lik. Furthermore, I don't feel the need not to be patronising when someone tells me how broken a particular design is and then proposes a replacement which completely fails to take into account any of the key facts about the problem in question. > I don't think Jim would be oppposed to a better technical > solution, or people pointing to flaws in design that were more than > mere opinions. Jim _is_ opposed to the better technical solution that I favour: improving dpkg-source. Furthermore, the fact that I had to go off and write my thesis has nothing to do with whether or not Debian should use dpkg-source or bin it. The technical arguments either way are the same. It's not even as if the code is hard (unlike dpkg, which is very complex). > And you need to offer something more than opinions when you > say you find a design flawed. (I think it is rude to say that to an > initial RFC, but I've given up on polite discourse with you). Would you rather have code or long essays ? I have a limited amount of time, and I can spend it coding or fighting this kind of fire. Ian.
