On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 08:48:03PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > And you still havn't told us what you didn't understand when James > > wrote: 'If depending on emacs bothers you, make it a suggests.' They > > *don't* have to have emacs installed! > > The way of James contact the developpers. He should be more cordial > and try explain that things not only reject a package and make > conditions to accept this. > > I understand the cause and how James solve the problem but the thread > was more to try take attention on the way of things occour in > Debian. We should try be more cordial each other.
I'm hardly the sort likely to be first in line to defend Mr. Troup's
policies about various things - a causal search of the list archives should
make that abundantly clear - but I fail to see how he wasn't being quite
civil, polite, and reasonable about it.
For that matter, he and I have differed over things in some of my packages;
however, he does, in my experience, actually try to explain what the issue
is, and offer alternatives if there appear to be any.
Listing specific things that must be done before the package will be
accepted can, in some cases, sound much less polite - and more like an
ultimatum. Listing the reasons for the rejection, and a brief explanation
of why they're relevant, should really suffice to give you the opportunity
to say "I don't agree, here's why:" in an equally polite manner. He's
been known to change his mind, when presented with suitable evidence
or persuasive argument, but his job as ftpmaster is, in large part, to
do exactly what he did - reject package uploads that appear to have
significant problems, which can include poor packaging decisions.
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ,''`.
Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter : :' :
`. `'
`-
pgpZVMT5Rjc1G.pgp
Description: PGP signature
