Bruce, fix your damn spam filter. You have hit the end of my patience. ----- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----
Date: 4 Feb 2000 16:22:36 -0000 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: failure notice Hi. This is the qmail-send program at kitenet.net. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Connected to 198.161.206.8 but sender was rejected. Remote host said: 555 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... No mail from pac bell dialup. --- Below this line is a copy of the message. Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: (qmail 7906 invoked by uid 500); 4 Feb 2000 16:22:34 -0000 Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 08:22:34 -0800 From: Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Bug#56934: boot floppies Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; from [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 01:07:39AM -0700 Bruce, I don't have time for this. Send me a bug report and I will deal with it, else you will be summarly ignored. You are periliously close to my killfile for the ad hominyms in the message below. I have been working 20 hours a day on debian this week at linuxworld, grabing 10 minutes here and there to try to stay current on any issues in my packages and you call me "too lazy". You should not regard debain developers as your persoal sservants to be abused at will. Show a little gratitude, and adjust your attitude. Bruce Sass wrote: > AARRRRRGGGGHHHHH! > > Joey, > > Are you being obtuse on purpose. > > You cut message so that its subject is lost, then babble about filing a > bug report on imaginary sources.list entries. No one said anything > about sources.list entries. I called you on an inaccurate statement you > made and demonstrated why it was inaccurate, cutting your statement out > of the message and calling mine immaterial will not change reality. > > The fact of the matter is that apt-get works fine with the data I gave > it via apt-setup, apt-setup then decides the data is not good enough and > wants me to re-enter it. The reason it behaves like that is because the > way it is coded assumes, incorrectly, that any message from apt is fatal > to apt's operation. > > So, either you were too damn lazy to do it properly, or apt-get's output > is not good enough for apt-setup to distinguish between a fatal error > and a warning message. Whatever the reason, the consequence is the > same: base-config requires one to have all the Packages and Sources > files hanging around before it lets you configure apt, even though > apt-get would work just fine with only one of those files available. > > > Adam, > > I really don't care what you guys do about this one, apt will get > purged when setting up potato for my own use anyways. I'll test the bf > sets to the extent my hardware will allow, report on what I see, and > make recommendations where I see fit... but I will not start playing > word games or wasting time arguing with `programmers' who have trouble > understanding how their own code interacts with the other bits of the > system. I mean, it is just so F'n obvious what the bug report and my > comment attached to it is about that I have a hard time believing anyone > who looked at the bits in question would get confused, especially the > maintainer of the package the code belongs to. > > > - Bruce > (pissed off at what he perceives as being nothing more than an attempt > to cover one's butt from well deserved criticism by obfuscating the > issue, grrr) > > -- > On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Joey Hess wrote: > > > Bruce Sass wrote: > > > That is not an accurate statement, base-config uses apt-setup. > > > > That's immaterial, apt-setup is part of base-config. > > > > > "Apt-get update" runs fine, but the whiptail dialog reappears > > > and asks me to re-enter the data destined for /etc/apt/sources.list; > > > this appears to be under the control of apt-setup from the base-config > > > package. > > > > apt-setup uses apt to generate that error message you see. In fact, it > > simply looks at apt's returns code and standard error, and dumps the > > standerd error output to you verbatim. I do not see how this can be a bug in > > apt-setup. if you think it is, I would suggest you file a proper bug report, > > with the apt sources.list entries that cause the problem. > > > > -- > > see shy jo, in New York -- see shy jo ----- End forwarded message ----- -- see shy jo
