| 1 |
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 12:00:17 -0400 |
| 2 |
Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> *yawn* such a drama queen. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> i never said "i am going to do this everyone else be damned". i did |
| 7 |
> say "i will probably do this soon". but that is why i posted to |
| 8 |
> gentoo-dev in the first place -- to get feedback from others. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> gnutls breakage: not relevant. you're causing that breakage by not |
| 11 |
> adding a simple patch that most every other package has merged. |
| 12 |
> conflating the issue to a major ABI bump is also irrelevant. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> boost breakage: if 1.50 is going to be unmasked soon, i can wait for |
| 15 |
> that. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> general breakage: we can't sit around waiting for all packages to get |
| 18 |
> fixed. if people aren't going to fix packages after being given |
| 19 |
> notice, then they get tree cleaned. not a big deal. |
| 20 |
> -mike |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
You both (Mike and Diego) make good and valid points regarding the |
| 23 |
unmasking of glibc-2.16 and its impact on other packages (and, |
| 24 |
subsequently, users). However, the personal attacks against one another |
| 25 |
add nothing to the discussion. Resorting to ad hominem relegates the |
| 26 |
discourse to a less-than-helpful state for everyone involved. Please |
| 27 |
try to focus on the points raised by other developers and users, so |
| 28 |
that the end result is something that benefits the community and |
| 29 |
distribution as a whole. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Cheers, |
| 32 |
Nathan Zachary |
Archives