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.
Description: Questa =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E8?= una parte del messaggio firmata digitalmente