On Dec 31, 2003, at 6:11 PM, Max Horn wrote:
Err, sorry, but I don't understand why you react so extremely aggressive. I just re-read what I wrote, and I still don't get why what I wrote makes me a dick (again, apparently). I was merely asking, and IMO not even impolite (although maybe due the fact that I am not a native speaker I am missing something abusive I said, although I have not the slightest clue what that would be). I was (and am) seriously surprised by this approach (tried to show that by my use of three question marks, BTW). I didn't mean to say that you or anybody else involved in this matter is stupid, or whatever else you thought I was implying. I simply didn't understand, and hence did what is usually a good idea in such a situation: ask.
To me sometimes Max, you come across as condescending, abrupt and like you know everything better then everyone else, and that none of our proposals could possibly be valid. Sometimes it does not seem like a technical discussion at all, rather like a lecture from max on why we are so wrong. Combined with your comments on a tracker item today (to a simple user who didn't follow the rules - yeah, users do that, no need to yell at them) you seem to be acting more and more like chrisp:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/? func=detail&atid=117203&aid=860056&group_id=17203
basically sounds just like how chrisp acted before he quit:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/? func=detail&atid=371315&aid=479267&group_id=17203
In my particular situation, yes perhaps there flaws. Point them out in a manner that is not so condescending, please.
Your 'use of the three question marks' is exactly what pissed me off, as if you are asking:
"how could we be so stupid to suggest this??? Don't you know that your suggestion is stupid??? Have you thought this through you idiot??" Asking "if i have thought something through" is rude. Just point out any problems you may see without the commentary.
Again there is obviously a middle ground, not all people are so easily offended and set off as I am, some wouldn't be bothered at all, and the large center ground would simply read it and say 'that guy was a bit harsh eh? He was just making a proposal'
Hm, in the light of what Ben Hines that (namely that for 'developers', one can 'hold' packages), does that mean that we essential will start to tell developers (like Ben or me and many others) that they now have to start manually fixing their Fink installation whenever changes like that are made? I mean, since for example I would have to hold those -dev packages mentioned above, that would mean in the alternate world (where we implemented the changes as Martin and Ben suggest them), I would have had to manually fix up my freetype2 installation. Do I understand that right so far?
I don't understand your concern here... no you wouldn't have to manually 'hold' or 'fix' anything. Fink would know that you manually had installed those packages (via a 'fink install' or apt-get command for example), and so would attempt to keep them installed at the end of any fink run rather than removing them. You wouldn't have to explicitly hold them at all or manually fix up anything. This is not a developer only feature. It would work best as a default option - most users would NOT want to keep build time only deps installed. Even as a developer, i only want packages i have asked for via fink install, even -dev.
To clarify again my 'that is planned' statement simply meant I certainly plan to attempt to do this, i didn't mean to say it was a done deal as you have interpreted. I can see how you might have take it that way from others actions on fink in the past, but hopefully you know that Ben Hines generally doesn't ever commit things to fink without bringing them up to everyone in detail. For example when i implemented the mirroring stuff I posted a design for them and solicited comments. It is the other people who change dep engines without asking. :)
Anyway maybe in the end it will turn out to not be feasible, but I certainly don't see blockers here. If the solution is a full chroot, so be it - that will have many other benefits too. All the problems you mention i believe can be overcome. Packages could still be switched out if you were holding something with a "build depends hold".. fink could simply know to put back the ones you wanted at the end of a run and ask you what to do if there are issues. Anyway I didn't plan to fully implement this right now, i'd like to work on getting fink to mix binaries and source dependencies better first since it is a more common user request.
-Ben
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371&op=click _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
