On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 23:09:01 -0600
Eli Schwartz wrote:
> No dialog is necessary, it was a straightforward change with absolutely no
> impact
Sent to the correct header this time .
Apologies Mark
That statement is the Absolute height of obnoxious arrogant ignorance ans hows
your
thin
On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 00:18:25 -0500
Mark Lee wrote:
> > No dialog is necessary, it was a straightforward change with absolutely no
> > impact
That statement is the Absolute height of obnoxious arrogant ignorance ans hows
your
thinking for what it is .. i am so i am right attitude .. disgu
On 01/04/15 00:40, Eli Schwartz wrote:
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Mark Lee wrote:
DId you read any of Ralf's messages? He prefaces by commenting about
backwards compatibility and Torvalds' comments.
This isn't just about makepkg; this is about backwards compatibility as
well. Just becau
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Mark Lee wrote:
> DId you read any of Ralf's messages? He prefaces by commenting about
> backwards compatibility and Torvalds' comments.
>
> This isn't just about makepkg; this is about backwards compatibility as
> well. Just because yaourt changed it's process to
On 01/04/15 00:09, Eli Schwartz wrote:
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Mark Lee wrote:
An AUR (unofficial package) shouldn't be restricting the development of an
official package. But, a dialogue regarding any differences surely can take
place.
No dialog is necessary, it was a straightforwa
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Mark Lee wrote:
> An AUR (unofficial package) shouldn't be restricting the development of an
> official package. But, a dialogue regarding any differences surely can take
> place.
>
No dialog is necessary, it was a straightforward change with absolutely no
impact
On 01/03/15 23:18, Eli Schwartz wrote:
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 9:11 PM, Mark Lee wrote:
I believe the issue is deprecation of a feature utilized by an AUR (non
officially sanctioned) package (yaourt). It should be the responsibility of
the AUR maintainer to engage in discussions regarding depre
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 9:11 PM, Mark Lee wrote:
> I believe the issue is deprecation of a feature utilized by an AUR (non
> officially sanctioned) package (yaourt). It should be the responsibility of
> the AUR maintainer to engage in discussions regarding deprecation of
> official features; and i
On 01/03/15 21:24, Eli Schwartz wrote:
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
Linux and BSD user space is software based on other software. Yaourt
and some other software does need pacman. Pacman needs bash, curl and
other packages and those packages depend on other packages too.
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
> Linux and BSD user space is software based on other software. Yaourt
> and some other software does need pacman. Pacman needs bash, curl and
> other packages and those packages depend on other packages too.
>
> This policy does only work, when
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Leonid Isaev wrote:
> Companies are free to produce whatever crap they want. Unless you are a
> FSF (or
> RMS) fanatic, there is nothing wrong with DRM really.
>
> Cheers,
>
There is absolutely nothing right about denying people the right to use
their own property
On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 18:57:11 -0500, Jeremy Audet wrote:
> > However, I like that Linus Torvalds made some clear statements to
> > the careless, ignorant systemd and dbus crowed, while he's not
> > against systemd and dbus, just against the new attitudes.
>
> Writing good software is hard. Providing
> However, I like that Linus Torvalds made some clear statements to the
> careless, ignorant systemd and dbus crowed, while he's not against
> systemd and dbus, just against the new attitudes.
Writing good software is hard. Providing the developers of that
software with concrete examples of use ca
On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 09:59:41 -0600, Doug Newgard wrote:
> Without going completely into the battle that can be started by the
> link you mentioned, what about the "choice and freedom" of the
> authors? Don't they have the "choice and freedom" to write their
> software as they see fit?
Linux and BSD
On Sat, Jan 03, 2015 at 03:45:35PM -0500, Christian Demsar wrote:
> Removing asroot reduces flexibility. For instance, when making packages on a
> live install usb. You'd have to create a new account and su into it.
Why? Just do what Arch LiveCD has been doing for ages (i.e. having the 'arch'
use
On January 3, 2015 10:59:41 AM EST, Doug Newgard wrote:
>Without going completely into the battle that can be started by the
>link you mentioned, what about the "choice and freedom" of the authors?
>Don't they have the "choice and freedom" to write their software as
>they
>see fit? This would cert
I'm going to disagree with you on both counts. While maintaining
backward compatibility is a good thing, there is often a cost, and very
often that cost is too high. In this case, maintaining cruft and
additional code complexity in order to maintain a feature that should
never be used anyway simpl
On Fri, 2 Jan 2015 20:12:12 +0100
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> IMOH it isn't wise to ignore backwards compatibility. And btw. I
> dislike the claims mentioned by a link ...
> "Linux has never been about ‘choice’ or ‘freedom’ and those myths
> should just die out." ... underpinned with a link to redhat :(
18 matches
Mail list logo
