Re: Blackmailing ...

On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 12:25:27PM +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Thu, 6 May 2004, Axel Thimm wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 11:21:21AM +0200, Bert de Bruijn wrote:
> >
> > > That point seems to be "Dag, your package A obsoletes my package B. This 
> > > prevents end users to use both our repositories. What shall we do to solve 
> > > this ?"
> > 
> > and also add that this obsoleting is technically totally
> > unneccessary. It only serves to explicitly break the compatibility!
> 
> Axel, you've been insinuating all along that I've been doing this on 
> purpose and to harm you. Which is totally exagerated. I've been obsoleting 
> uncommon names for packages since the day I started packaging. The 
> madwifi obsoletes was probably already there before you packaged your 
> madwifi packages.

No, you added them the day I filed the bugzilla report on 11th of
march (or 1-2 days earlier):

http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=69

> Look at my other kernel module packages, they too obsolete uncommon names. 
> If it breaks with your package this is unfortunate, but you must 
> understand that I'm not going to solve this isolated incident as long as 
> there is no standard.

So what is the purpose of obsolting uncommon names. Doing just for
sports is a lame excuse. Isn't the only reason to obsolete a package to
get rif of it? And if this is not a package out of your repo, doesn't
this imply you want to get rid of any other non-Dag packages out
there? Even if you would have been introducing this at a moment in
time were no such packages other than yours existed, wouldn't that
mean you are even breaking compatibility with future packages of
non-Dag repos?

So what exactly am I insinuating that is not true? You are obsoleting
uncommon names in order to enforce your common (=Dag) names. Just like
in the case of your mozilla-mplayer package obsoleting mplayerplug-in
which also had to be discussed to death and finally escalated to the
author who asked not to rename his packages.

Please stop obsoleting other repo's packages if you want to remain
compatible.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

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

iD8DBQFAmhSSQBVS1GOamfERAvn+AJ9AMojkItcah89HAJLYaq3nx8wuXACcCDTi
sUdLqTX3AaaVn7gtdwpcP9s=
=mBvt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----