| 1 |
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 13:19:08 +0200 |
| 2 |
Michael Hanselmann <hansmi@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 03:07:28AM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote: |
| 5 |
> > As it seems, you do not have the time and/or interest to cleanup the |
| 6 |
> > qmail mess, but don't want anyone to touch (net)qmail ebuilds |
| 7 |
> > either, i have put the updated ebuilds for qmail and friends into |
| 8 |
> > my overlay. [1] |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> You interpret something into it which isn't true. I'm not “holding” |
| 11 |
> it. Publishing such unverified interpretations publically isn't |
| 12 |
> exactly nice, too. It's just that I don't have time today or tomorrow |
| 13 |
> to look more exactly into it, or, more exactly, I have things with |
| 14 |
> higher priorities to be done first (but also Free Software related!). |
| 15 |
> And as the current maintainer I just said “no” to your code (for |
| 16 |
> now). There's nothing wrong with doing that if I'm not accepting it |
| 17 |
> (due to whatever reason). You didn't ask to take over maintainership. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
In fact you haven't been that nice either, but honestly i don't care. |
| 20 |
Therefore i have just moved the ebuilds to my overlay until you can |
| 21 |
review them ... |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> Doing a change like this to an ebuild has to be well thought, reviewed |
| 24 |
> and can't be done withing hours. netqmail is rather fragile to |
| 25 |
> breakage and we don't want our users to loose e-mails due to our |
| 26 |
> failures, do we? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
... so that it can be tested by those who feel like. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> Now, you should correct that blog entry (I'm not going into why moving |
| 31 |
> topics from MLs to blogs is very bad) to actually state true facts and |
| 32 |
> then wait a few days. I'll have some time during this week. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Greets, |
| 35 |
> Michael |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives