On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, Ian Jackson wrote: > Firstly, thanks for taking the time to read what I wrote. (Thanks > also for Sam for his helpful perspective.) > > > Stepping back a bit, and firmly putting my `user' hat on: > > My aim was to share my experience, because I guess the point of > jessie-backports (and of much of what we do in Debian) is to help > Debian's users. In this case I was a user who had something go wrong, > but I was in the unusually fortunate situation of being able (due to > my personal skills, my support network, and my available time) to > diagnose the problem and write up a report. > > I did this because I thought it would be worthwhile seeing if Debian > thought there was anything here to be learned, about how to better > support some of its users. If those responsible for these services > don't think so, then, well, as users we get what we pay for. > > If those responsible for -backports don't value this kind of feedback > then of course next time I can not write it up as a learning > opportunity for Debian. I can just work around it instead. So let me rephrase as an admin. You - the user - ignored three announcements about the deprecation and the change of the metapackage handling of the linux-image package, but you want us to send more even more announcements to get you better informed? I don't get it, what distinguishes those explicit removal announcements from the other announcements you ignored?
Alex - backports ftpmaster
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
