Quoting Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org): > Luk Claes <l...@debian.org> (04/10/2010): > > Please try to avoid such language and maybe you could include or > > point to some explanation how the experimental buildds work to avoid > > repeated mistakes? > > Like specifying build dependencies according to what one is needing? > Sounds like NM 101. Like checking a build in a chroot? Sounds like NM > 101 as well. > > What about #580743 and #595642? Again experimental-is-so-different's > fault? No. Very much looks like “maintainer”'s being lazy, again and > again.
I wouldn't say "lazy". Maybe overloaded and sometimes showing less care than perfection would need. This is what happens to many people when, being very skilled, they're involved in many projects. (or, because it also happens to me, to less skilled people who are also involved in too many projects) I wouldn't like us to lose Jelmer's contributions to things floating around samba4. I understand that repetitive such issues are annoying to buildd maintainers...but I'm not sure that yelling will give the itnended results. To answer Jelmer's interrogation about keeping those things related to samba4 in the Debian archive: yes I think it should be done here. Precisely because it helps finding issues you just pointed, Cyril. So, really, can we de-escalate this?
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
