why gas not moonshine :) warmest regards, Chris Yarger
web: http://YargerDesigns.org skype: cpyarger msn: [email protected] aim: patyarg yahoo: christoyarg ( ) ASCII ribbon campaign X against HTML e-mail / \ On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Paul Flint <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Aaron, > > Now wait a minute, I live for pointless conflict... > > Here is the best accelerant I can think of right now: > > Josh, can we have an RPM vs. DEB slug-fest at an upcoming meeting? > I would prefer that this shootout take place prior to a VI/EMACS rematch, > but I am flexible on this point. > > Finally Jonathan, I am touting you as the "Deb Dude". > > O.K. Aaron, pick the gloves...nice and slow...lemme see the rage...yes... > > ...come over to the dark side of the force". It is your destiny... > > Kindest Regards, > > Flint > > On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Aaron S. Hawley wrote: > > Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 00:13:35 -0400 >> From: Aaron S. Hawley <[email protected]> >> Reply-To: Vermont Area Group of Unix Enthusiasts <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: melodrama at CentOS? >> >> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 2:28 PM, jonathan d p ferguson<[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Interesting. I am not aiming to start some war involving oven mits, but >>> you seem to be >>> responding to something I did not write. Maybe I'm missing your point: >>> >>> I did not say "dependency handling" I said "the System Policy of >>> Dependency >>> Checking." I know full well, that RPM, as a format is perfectly capable >>> of >>> expressing dependency information. [Insert devil and details here]. The >>> problem is not in the format per-se (which was the point of my original >>> post >>> anyway). The problem is in the System Policy which guides the People who >>> package the software. In other words, not having a requirement for >>> articulating dependencies in a systematic and automated way. >>> >> >> Ok, I guess I misunderstood your initial words on the matter. I >> thought you were making the technical (and historical) criticism about >> RPM that we now both agree is false. I can now see how "system >> policy" in your description of Debian was meant to connote a social >> expectation for the distribution and not a technical requirement for >> the software used to manage packages. Your statement that Debian had >> support for "dependency checking" earlier than RPMs, "Now RPMs have >> _started_ supporting dependency checking", was what struck me as false >> history. >> >> Oven mits are removed. >> >> > Kindest Regards, > > > > Paul Flint > (802) 479-2360 > > > /************************************ > Based upon email reliability concerns, > please send an acknowledgment in response to this note. > > Paul Flint > Barre Open Systems Institute > 17 Averill Street > Barre, VT > 05641 > > http://www.bosivt.org > http://www.flint.com/home > skype: flintinfotech > Work: (202) 537-0480 > > Consilium _ > gratuitum .~. ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) > valet /V\ against HTML e-mail X > quanti /( )\ www.asciiribbon.org / \ > numerantur ^^-^^ >
