[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: pkgsrc-current-destdir Linux 2.6.24-1-686-bigmem/i686 bulk build results 20080829.1720
Aleksey Cheusov <cheusov%tut.by@localhost> writes:
> >> It is trivially to proof that in most cases maintainer of failed
> >> dependancy is closer to the problem than that of "indirectly" broken
> >> package.
>> If it is trivially, prove it applied to wip/slate.
Thus, you failed to show it.
One wrong point in your position.
> >> wip/slate and infrastructure failures are rare excludions.
>> Oh, really? Prove it.
> If you diagree with my hypothesis, proof it is wrong.
Ever studied logic at university?
It is your task, since you proposed that hypothesis first.
Thus, you failed to prove the second point in your position.
There're many outdated packages, which need serious update
before anything should be done with them. For instance,
parallel/mpi-ch was such before I took it, all EMBOSS packages,
many TCL/Tk packages, SML/NJ, VTK, many others. Any of them may
change list of dependencies.
Thus you must not change responsibility domains: the first
responsible party for wip/slate is wip/slate maintainer,
and not anyone else. If you disagree, put your name first
in the list, since you're the one, who reports "bugs".
The rest is intentionally written in Russian (saying).
Доносчику --- первый кнут.
Main Index |
Thread Index |