Re: [gentoo-catalyst] xlivecd does not login automatically

[Alex]

Hi,

Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 20:55 +0000, Alex wrote:
>> Do you really think it is *my* job to "fix the problem"? I am just a
>
> Yes, I do.
>
>> simple user who had simply a simple question while you are the "Design
>> lead". Additionally it would be more than just "a few minutes", because
>
> Is putting something like "design lead" in quotes supposed to make it
> derogatory or something?
>

So I have read it on catalyst's project page ;]

>> I can't speak python.
>
> Great.  All the functionality which you've asked about is implemented
> solely in bash, as most of catalyst is bash.
>

Now I see, you are right. I've just stopped reading after I have seen 
the "catalyst" file in the top directory.

>>> Doing catalyst support for non-releases takes a significant enough
>>> portion of my time that I sometimes wish we'd never bothered to make an
>>> ebuild for it.  ;]
>>>
>> Why do you bother the time if it is too much for you? I don't understand
>> that.
>
> Good point.  Perhaps I should refrain from posting any more updates to
> catalyst for public consumption.
>
>> I've thought if I have a question I can mail to this list and get some
>> help from _users_. I didn't excepted that there's a very nice "Design
>> lead" who answers with something like "what makes you think the CD
>> *would* login automatically?", only if I had asked.
>
> I'm really having a hard time following what you're saying here.
>

Me too.

> The only thing that I *do* understand is that somebody needs to get
> their panties out of their crack.  Did you miss the smiley at the end of
> that question that you have decided to quote ad nauseum?  Yeah, that
> means it was a *joke* to be taken lightly.
>

Ok, nice to know. I haven't interpreted it as joke. But that was not the 
point on which I got pissed off.

>> In the out-of-date template specfile there was some sentences I've read.
>> And what makes you think the users *know* that the templates are
>> out-of-date?
>
> Did you even read what I said?

Yes I have.

>
> I said that the templates were *correct* and the code was wrong.  How
> did you know it was wrong?  Well, you reported originally that it didn't
> work as expected, so you *obviously* knew that it was wrong.  Are you
> saying that you were able to assert that it didn't work, but at the same
> time didn't know that something was wrong?

I never had said something would be wrong. I've just excepted help. 
Sorry if the topic was misleading.

>
>> You had begin to argue, while it was just, not more, not less an answer
>> to the "what makes you think the CD *would* login automatically?" Why
>> should I bother time if I had only a question? It also would reduce the
>> flexibility if I implement such a function. That was your argument.
>
> That wasn't my "argument" at all.  First off, I wasn't arguing anything,
> I was making a statement.  How you decided that this was some sort of
> "argument" to be had, I really don't know.
>
> You asked why it didn't auto-login, and I answered with a simple set of
I've never asked why it didn't auto-login. I have only written that it 
does not auto-login, because I had excepted it.
> statements of why.  I thought it would be funny to start off with a joke
> beforehand, which you blew totally out of proportion and then decided to
> start responding with some sort of thinly-veiled "insult" by calling me
> a "design lead" or something.

This shouldn't be an "insult" or something. It was just because you 
excepted *me* to fix this, altough it wasn't a bug (I think). I got 
irritated. such easy

>
> I really don't know what you're trying to accomplish here.

Nothing. Actually. I just get pissed off by your _last_ mail (not this, 
I am answering now, but this before)

>
> I was merely trying to point out why catalyst does what it does.  I had
> no desire to get into some sort of pissing match with someone who is way
> too sensitive.  Go back and re-read my emails.  I am not trying to
> insult you.  I am trying to *help* you answer your questions.
> Seriously.  You need to just calm the hell down.  I'm not *after* you or
> anything.  I'm simply trying to explain to you why things are they way
> that they are.

Yes, but between your lines I've found a begin of an argue, but may an 
interpretation failure. I just don't understand your last mail.

>
> Also, you'll notice that the broken behavior that you experienced in
> catalyst has been changed in 2.0_rc50.  Do you know *why* it was
> changed?  Because you had found a bug, and I fixed it.  It really is
> *that* simple.

You said the code was wrong. does it mean it does now auto-login? (or is 
it an interpretation failure again?)

>
>> Maybe I should ignore such mails from you, if I except help from
>> _users_. Maybe I should also ignore all the mails from you assigned to
>> me for this thread. I don't know yet, but I'll see and you'll see.
>
> Honestly, be my guest.  In fact, I implore you to do so.

Ok, nice that we could clarified this.

>
>> I've to do better things than argue with you, and I hope you too.
>
> How about stepping back and taking a nice breather?  It's just software,
> man.  No need to get all pissy about it.
>

It seems to was (can I say this so (with the grammar I mean)) just some 
interpretation-failures on both sides. sorry

bye.
-- 
gentoo-catalyst@g.o mailing list