| 1 |
On 10/08/2011 06:13 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 08-10-2011 11:05:08 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
>> If the extra 16 days will actually accomplish something beyond just |
| 4 |
>> delaying libpng then we can debate the finer points of policy. |
| 5 |
>> However, if we're just arguing policy for its own sake then I don't |
| 6 |
>> see the value. Perhaps a package maintainer might have the "right" to |
| 7 |
>> a few weeks to fix things, but in the end you have to put the distro |
| 8 |
>> and its users first. You can do that either by speaking up or |
| 9 |
>> standing aside, but if you're going to speak up, then make sure you |
| 10 |
>> can follow through. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> It seems to me like you say here that any policy that Gentoo has that |
| 13 |
> you just don't like can be ignored because, well, you just don't like |
| 14 |
> it. |
| 15 |
> We can discuss whether or not the policy is ok, but should we ignore the |
| 16 |
> policy for that reason? I think not. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
It's not like fastened lastriting hasn't happened before. I question |
| 21 |
your motives in picking this particular one. It's not like I expected |
| 22 |
cookies for the time I've put into this porting effort, but not this |
| 23 |
"attack" either. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
whatever |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
- Samuli |
Archives