Hi,
Please, both, cool down. We don't need a flame war, and certainly not on
DDL.
Both seems to have their good POV; both seem to have a deteriorated
vision of the other, probably due to past discussions.
For example, saying that PackageKit can "serve only second-grade
distributions", isn't nice to the developers. Josselin, probably you
didn't realize that because you feel deeply frustrated and ignored, but
to an external viewer you're looking quite aggressive.
I think Richard felt attacked, jumped in the trench, and started
shooting back. This won't bring anyone anywhere: we need the
collaboration of a great distro like Debian as much as we need
PackageKit.
I see PackageKit as a very welcome idea and a needed layer in order to
abstract what's most inhomogeneous across distros: package management.
I'm quite excited by it. Maybe who wrote the apt backend could jump in
the discussion and say what the difficulties of making it run seamlessly
were/are.
An idea, by the way: as of now, Ubuntu during an update pops-up
sparingly a window asking what to do with a modified configuration file:
if keeping the original version of the maintainer, the modified one, or
what else.
Can't we have an option at the beginning of the upgrade process like
"
When a system-wide configuration file has to be replaced:
(o) Always choose the new version (recommended)
( ) Always leave the local version in place
( ) Ask from time to time
"
...or maybe a preference option?
Most users seeing that smb.conf or login.defs has to be adjusted really
don't know what to do (I've seen quite a lot of them panicking at a
distro upgrade): they never touched these files and don't know what they
do.
If this is Ubuntu specific only, just tell and I'll open a bug in
launchpad.
Thanks,
matteo
Il giorno mar, 25/11/2008 alle 19.58 +0100, Josselin Mouette ha scritto:
> Le mardi 25 novembre 2008 à 18:26 +0000, Richard Hughes a écrit :
> > Ubuntu are quite prepared to work _with_ the PackageKit developers
> > rather than _tell_ us what legacy features we have to support.
>
> I don’t recall having asked anyone to implement anything for us. However
> I do recall being explained that, if implemented, debconf support would
> not make it into your code.
>
> These kinds of little sentences are precisely the hostility I was
> talking about. You grew hate for the very idea of correctly supporting
> Debian based on false ideas of what our requirements are, and ignored
> any further attempts of explanations.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Questa =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E8?= una parte del messaggio firmata digitalmente