On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 04:46:10PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote: > On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 12:43 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > * +0.5 for moving uname-r *if* there is strong evidence that it will be > acceptable for all major stakeholders (Fedora, RHEL, kerneldrivers.org > in particular), -0.5 otherwise chicken and egg problem? > > While the single items are all factually correct > > Strong words. The above summary and the detailed doc contains several > inaccuracies and omissions (eg. about agnosticity, flexibility, buildsys > support, kabi, support(ability) in other distros etc), luckily mostly in > the less important parts. I guess this is due to not understanding all > aspects of the current scheme and the environment it is designed to work > in. I won't spend time detailing those because I don't have time to do > that right now, and even if I had, IMO there are no real reasons to > consider/discuss its adoption besides the uname-r move bit. (Yes, sucky > statement, but shrug, it's the best I can do in the time I have > available for this at the moment.) Yes, it's quite lame. If you accuse the write-up of inaccuracies/ommisions you have to go into details. Even defusing that it's not about the important parts is not enough. No, really, I don't have time to waste myself, still I deliver for every statement I make. If you don't people may consider it FUD. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpPv2ZLlebij.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
