[not CC-ing the RFA, I did it by mistake before and I don't think this is so relevant to that specific matter]
2009/4/15 Mike Hommey <m...@glandium.org>: > Bug count is not a good metric. Take a look at the bug count for linux-2.6, > glibc, iceweasel... Fair enough. Is there a convenient way to measure how long a bug stays unanswered? Or could someone suggest a better metric? Because I have the feeling that many hal bugs are just kept undealt (upstream as well), way more than with other packages, but it could be just a feeling of course. Anyway, I take back that point; I stand with the others: I do think hal is an obscure, user unfriendly, hardly configurable system. I see it is where a part of the community is heading, so we'll have to live with that, until something better pops up; but users shouldn't be forced to use it, when it isn't necessary. I don't want my X server to wai 30 seconds to start, because it has to wait for hal, when the rest of the system is ready in less then 10 seconds. I feel xorg.conf it's a neat way to configure it, because I can do it with a text editor, and I don't have all those XML tags in the way. If I'll need sophisticated hot-plugging, I'll switch; but as long as I don't need the feature, I don't want to pay the price, as Arjan van de Ven put it. Cheers, Luca -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
