Re: Blackmailing ... (was: Zero-tolerance educational methods for promoting questionable policies???)

On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 11:43:23AM +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
> A common naming/versioning is all I ask.

But your enforcement of your politics is wrong. It is like bombing the
neighbor country because they differ in their opinion.

> Given the history on that subject I don't think I'm being difficult
> here.

Obsoleting other repos and thsu breaking compatibility is not being
difficult???

On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 12:05:57PM +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
> Claiming someone is incompatible while there isn't a common standard is 
> funny. Because the cause of incompatibility can be at both sides.

You are twisting the situation. Every repo has different guidelines
than the others, so no repo would be "compatible" to anything else in
your definition.

The definition of comaptibility we were using until now (including
you!) was whether the repos can be used simultaneously w/o breaking
the user's system.

Obviously ever since you introduced your obsoletion policy this is not
possible anymore.

Playing with words does not help, incompatibility is reflexive, so Dag
is incompatible to ATrpms and ATrpms is incompatible to Dag.

The main issue is that you created this incompatibility on purpose to
pursue you politics. Once again, please remove this insanity.

(without resorting to "only if this and that", no more bakcmailing
politics, _please_!!!)
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

_______________________________________________
repo-coord mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/repo-coord

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAmhJ/QBVS1GOamfERAm0kAJoCTv6z9wdM4kkNA1eJxjLJS4oNjgCfZtDW
Jx4CJ9kRIp1Pno5/zPjLVvY=
=LAI8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----