Bug#1020290: apt incorrectly prefer usr-is-merged
On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 01:17:52PM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote: > I think that was well beyond what could be acceptable for a Debian member to > behave like. Have you considering finding other venues? Have you considered minding your own fucking business? You've all been fucking dog-piling me since I first posted the fucking bug report, and I'm fucking sick of it. Obviously I've beens far too subtle for you fuckers to understand, so I'll state it very plainly so that even a cretin can understand: ALL OF YOU FUCK OFF AND STOP FUCKING HARASSING ME.
Bug#1020290: apt incorrectly prefer usr-is-merged
Re: Craig Sanders > I certainly have no respect or tolerance for posturing busybody wankers > pretending they have the high moral ground. Hi Craig, I think that was well beyond what could be acceptable for a Debian member to behave like. Have you considering finding other venues? Christoph
Bug#1020290: apt incorrectly prefer usr-is-merged
On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 06:27:51PM +1000, Stuart Prescott wrote: > Nope. If it were that easy to reproduce and the package were that buggy, it > would never have been uploaded. (Please offer a tiny bit of respect to your > fellow developers!) The bug is closed, you lot have dog-piled enough, and respect is earned, not an entitlement. I respond to dismissive contempt with more of the same. I certainly have no respect or tolerance for posturing busybody wankers pretending they have the high moral ground. More importantly, I really do not give a fuck any more. I have my own workaround for a shitty broken package that does a shitty job of implementing a stupid and pointless idea. Go away and stop bothering me. craig
Bug#1020290: apt incorrectly prefer usr-is-merged
On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 08:59:17 +1000 Craig Sanders wrote: > > Maybe you can provide a minimal reproducer (based on a minimal chroot). > > Making a stable VM and then upgrading it to sid should show it. Nope. If it were that easy to reproduce and the package were that buggy, it would never have been uploaded. (Please offer a tiny bit of respect to your fellow developers!) You might be unaware that stable→sid upgrades are tested automatically, and that the problem can't be reproduced there either. https://piuparts.debian.org/stable2sid/source/i/init-system-helpers.html https://piuparts.debian.org/stable2sid/pass/init-system-helpers_1.65.2.log Understanding what provoked apt to pick the wrong package on your particular system is needed here. Quite obviously no-one else can reproduce it (or, once again, it wouldn't have been uploaded). Also obviously, if there are no details, it won't be fixed except perhaps by accident. The output of « apt list '~o' » and « apt-cache policy » might have useful clues still. > But it's too late, I've lost interest and I have no more energy to deal with > the hostility and dog-piling. Please re-read your initial bug report and then please don't try taking the high moral ground about the tone of the discussion. -- Stuart Prescotthttp://www.nanonanonano.net/ stu...@nanonanonano.net Debian Developer http://www.debian.org/ stu...@debian.org GPG fingerprint90E2 D2C1 AD14 6A1B 7EBB 891D BBC1 7EBB 1396 F2F7
