Matthieu: > There's at least one case where revlibs inode signature occur: > backup/restore. In this case, [....]
You go on to describe an uncommon case and defend this patch as an imperfect work-around for that uncommon case. I guess you are arguing against the patch but are just explaining why it appeared on Andy's radar? >> I think you are are dangerously close to the trap that a certain subset >> of Canonical's awful hacking fell into: > When will you stop talking about Canonical each time you feel > something is wrong? When I am made whole. Roughly this will correspond to when I can turn my back on much of this stuff, go off, and catch up on raising kids. If Canonical is part of that -- fine. If not, well, then at least I don't have to give a shit about them anymore. And yes, going forward after being made whole would include continuing to make contributions to the world in the form of hacking although, if you find *anything* of value in the history of Arch, you should see what I can do when I'm not compelled to do a super-human rush job -- as far as I'm concerned, everything from larch onward is just an effective goof -- it's crap. Compelling, demonstrative, useful crap -- but rush-job crap nonetheless. -t _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
