Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Michael Piefel]

Am 21.04.02 um 16:08:17 schrieb Emanuele Aina:
> Someone (I don't remember who) said that odd numbers are better than
> even numbers, because summing or multipling even numbers you can only
> get even numbers...

Multiplying odd number always gives odd numbers. Not much gain.

Bye,
Mike

-- 
|=| Michael Piefel
|=| Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
|=| Tel. (+49 30) 2093 3831


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Emanuele Aina]

Patrick Ouellette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> esultò:
And the SUM of the numbers in the version number is also
an even number!!!
Sorry, but you are able to get a *odd* number summing only *even*
numbers? :-) Someone (I don't remember who) said that odd numbers are
better than even numbers, because summing or multipling even numbers you
can only get even numbers...
--
Au revoir.
Lele...

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Patrick Ouellette]

And the SUM of the numbers in the version number is also
an even number!!!

On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 07:52:57PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 19:52:57 +1000
> From: Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again
> Mail-Followup-To: Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>   debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> 
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 10:56:33AM +1000, Roger So wrote:
> > Why do people like you insists on having the latest version of
> > everything without making sure that it's actually _better_ than what we
> > have? 
> 
> Are you implying that the latest version isn't always the best version?
> 
> Yeah right! ;-)
> 
> 
> > Rather than repeating what most others have said, I'll give you one more
> > reason why not rushing 4.2.0 into woody is a good thing: the whole i18n
> > architecture changed from 4.1 to 4.2, and many bugs _were_ introduced in
> > the transition -- like X clients segfault on startup if Xlib can't find
> > the input method specified in the environment, and so on.  I for one am
> > glad that Branden is not rushing things through.
> 
> I need X 4.2 because it... errr... umph.
> 
> hang on a moment
> 
> ...because its version number is made entirely of even numbers.
> 
> ;-)
> 
> (knew there had to be a good reason).
> -- 
> Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 

-- 

Patrick Ouellette

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Amateur Radio: KB8PYM 50.200, 144.200  EN81fp
ICBM: 41:38:25.476N  83:31:43.417W


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Joseph Carter]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 09:16:49PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >  this is the New Overfiend, preacher of Love and Tolerance
> 
> I see your irony detector is as non-functional as ever... :)

Oh it works just fine.  It just _had_ to be said, sooner or later

-- 
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   This end upside-down
 
 If the user points the gun at his foot and pulls the trigger, it
   is our job to ensure the bullet gets where it's supposed to.



pgpydmmtbP9n3.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Sean Middleditch]

On Thu, 2002-04-18 at 09:13, Jack Howarth wrote:
> I agree with Chris it that is insulting for folks to be degrading the
> other arch's supported by Debian. What is strange is that someone would
> feel strongly enough about having a choice in operating systems to
> run Debian Linux yet think that a i386-only world is just fine. The
> two monopolies go hand in hand (Intel and Microsoft). Lastly the
> presence of non-i386 architectures has helped even the i386 folks
> by forcing Linux and gnu to be more rigorous in programming. The just
> because it runs on i386 won't cut it with multiple arches and enforces
> the requirement of clean coding that is processor independent.

I agree.  I mean, I put effort into my code to as portable as possible,
and love hearing from people, "wow, your code compiled on OS Foo on
architecture Bar, and that almost never happens with downloaded
source!", especially when I've never even been near aforementioned Foo
and Bar.

By writing cross platform code, it even compiles cleaner and easier
within the x86 environment as well.

>Jack
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Russell Coker]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 15:13, Jack Howarth wrote:
> by forcing Linux and gnu to be more rigorous in programming. The just
> because it runs on i386 won't cut it with multiple arches and enforces
> the requirement of clean coding that is processor independent.

I've fixed over a dozen bugs in my programs that never showed any symptoms on 
i386.  All of them were bugs that could potentially cause data loss on i386, 
but I could only track them down on other architectures.

-- 
If you send email to me or to a mailing list that I use which has >4 lines
of legalistic junk at the end then you are specifically authorizing me to do
whatever I wish with the message and all other messages from your domain, by
posting the message you agree that your long legalistic sig is void.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[David Schmitt]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 07:52:57PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> I need X 4.2 because it... errr... umph.
> 
> hang on a moment
> 
> ...because its version number is made entirely of even numbers.
> 
> ;-)
> 
> (knew there had to be a good reason).

Of course! 

That's it!

The clear truth is revealed!

This is not XFree 4.2.0  this _really_ is XFree 42 !





SCNR

Regards, David
-- 
Signaturen sind wie Frauen. Man findet selten eine Vernuenftige
-- gesehen in at.linux
Signaturen sind wie Frauen. Hat man einmal eine Vernuenftige gefunden
gibt man sie nicht wieder her.  -- Hubert Partl


pgpHuleDIoGkS.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Jack Howarth]

I agree with Chris it that is insulting for folks to be degrading the
other arch's supported by Debian. What is strange is that someone would
feel strongly enough about having a choice in operating systems to
run Debian Linux yet think that a i386-only world is just fine. The
two monopolies go hand in hand (Intel and Microsoft). Lastly the
presence of non-i386 architectures has helped even the i386 folks
by forcing Linux and gnu to be more rigorous in programming. The just
because it runs on i386 won't cut it with multiple arches and enforces
the requirement of clean coding that is processor independent.
   Jack


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Russell Coker]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 08:01, Ari Makela wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 01:14:15AM +0200, Russell Coker wrote:
> > What do you contribute to open source in general?  A search of
> > sourceforge and google reveals nothing.
>
> Google finds nothing because he's a Finn whose names often have
> Scandinavian characters. Too many things still break if they are used.
> Lasse's real surname is "Kärkkäinen". I have the exact same problem:
> I do s/ä/a/g when I use may name in URL's and emails.
>
> Lasse seems to be a member of a remarkably productive sourceforge project
> called Multimedia Container Format  http://sourceforge.net/projects/mcf/ >.

They appear to have never released anything.

Also there are 18 people in that project, I wonder whether Lasse does 1/18th 
of the work (I expect not).

-- 
If you send email to me or to a mailing list that I use which has >4 lines
of legalistic junk at the end then you are specifically authorizing me to do
whatever I wish with the message and all other messages from your domain, by
posting the message you agree that your long legalistic sig is void.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Brian May]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 10:56:33AM +1000, Roger So wrote:
> Why do people like you insists on having the latest version of
> everything without making sure that it's actually _better_ than what we
> have? 

Are you implying that the latest version isn't always the best version?

Yeah right! ;-)


> Rather than repeating what most others have said, I'll give you one more
> reason why not rushing 4.2.0 into woody is a good thing: the whole i18n
> architecture changed from 4.1 to 4.2, and many bugs _were_ introduced in
> the transition -- like X clients segfault on startup if Xlib can't find
> the input method specified in the environment, and so on.  I for one am
> glad that Branden is not rushing things through.

I need X 4.2 because it... errr... umph.

hang on a moment

...because its version number is made entirely of even numbers.

;-)

(knew there had to be a good reason).
-- 
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Brian May]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 07:25:31PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I didn't go anywhere.  Nowhere in my platform did I claim I wasn't evil.
> ;-)

Damm! Too late to vote for you now...
-- 
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Ari Makela]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 01:14:15AM +0200, Russell Coker wrote:

> What do you contribute to open source in general?  A search of sourceforge 
> and google reveals nothing.

Google finds nothing because he's a Finn whose names often have 
Scandinavian characters. Too many things still break if they are used.
Lasse's real surname is "Kärkkäinen". I have the exact same problem:
I do s/ä/a/g when I use may name in URL's and emails.

Lasse seems to be a member of a remarkably productive sourceforge project 
called Multimedia Container Format http://sourceforge.net/projects/mcf/ >.

Google search:

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=Lasse+Tronic&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Google+
Search&as_epq=&as_oq=Karkkainen+K%E4rkk%E4inen&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype
=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images
>

-- 
Ari Makela  [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://arska.org/hauva/

"Sailing is, after all, a kind of grace, a kind of magic." - Phil Berman


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Christopher C. Chimelis]

> On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 06:28:50AM +0300, Lasse Karkkainen wrote:
> > Other platforms aren't nearly as significant as i386 (not many users, no 
> > much new hardware).
> 
> You're arrogance makes me wonder if George W. Bush is related to you.

Hehehehee...

Lasse, I guess if the other platforms aren't nearly as significant as
i386, then I might as well reinstall Solaris, IRIX, HP-UX, Tru64, and OS X
on my machines since it would be obvious that they "aren't good enough" to
run linux.  Also, I might as well call a few of my former employers and
tell them that the work that they put into making linux better on their
platforms doesn't matter.  Your comments are both rude, biased, and
insulting...I guess my 5+ years of contributions and working on Alpha and
other ports doesn't equate to even minimal efforts by an i386-only
developer. Check my package list and see if you can live without my
packages, then write back with your answer as to whether my efforts
make any difference or not.  If you think other ports don't matter as much
as i386, then feel free to purge any of my packages from your system since
not one of them is compiled initially on i386.

> I'll give you a hint: we are volunteers, and we do this because it's
> fun. Messages like yours, that demand service for free just disgust.
> I guess after seeing your messages Branden goes out for a beer 
> rather an opens a editor to serve ungrateful kids.

Well said, Riku...

C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Jamie Wilkinson]

This one time, at band camp, Joseph Carter wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 07:25:31PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> I didn't go anywhere.  Nowhere in my platform did I claim I wasn't evil.
>> ;-)
>
> this is the New Overfiend, preacher of Love and Tolerance

Orwellian Love and Tolerance, that is.

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://spacepants.org/jaq.gpg
 
Remember:  every member of your 'target audience' also owns a broadcasting
station.  These 'targets' can shoot back.
-- Michael Rathbun to advertisers, in nanae 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 06:20:24PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
>  this is the New Overfiend, preacher of Love and Tolerance

I see your irony detector is as non-functional as ever... :)

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux   |  Please do not look directly into
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  laser with remaining eye.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


pgpPTZOvqBlln.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 06:20:24PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 07:25:31PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > > *Evil* twin?  You mean one of us isn't?
> > > 
> > > He's bck.

> > I didn't go anywhere.  Nowhere in my platform did I claim I wasn't evil.
> > ;-)

>  this is the New Overfiend, preacher of Love and Tolerance

Are you suggesting that everyone who preaches Love and Tolerance is 
non-evil?

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgpO1TJbOZqbT.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Joseph Carter]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 07:25:31PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > *Evil* twin?  You mean one of us isn't?
> > 
> > He's bck.
> 
> I didn't go anywhere.  Nowhere in my platform did I claim I wasn't evil.
> ;-)

 this is the New Overfiend, preacher of Love and Tolerance

-- 
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  glDisable (DX8_CRAP);
 
 netgod: what do you have in your kernel??? The compiled source for
   driving a space shuttle???
 time to make a zip drive your floppy drive then. if the kernel
   doesn fit on that, the kernel is an AI



pgpGHPuGasEVL.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Jamie Wilkinson]

This one time, at band camp, David D. W. Downey wrote:
>No apologies needed, we all know it's his evil twin.

*evil* twin?  Now I'm scared.

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://spacepants.org/jaq.gpg
 
Marge, this ticket doesn't just give me a seat.  It also gives me the 
right -- no, the duty -- to make a complete ass of myself.
-- Homer Simpson, Dancin' Homer


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 04:27:17PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > *Evil* twin?  You mean one of us isn't?
> 
> He's bck.

I didn't go anywhere.  Nowhere in my platform did I claim I wasn't evil.
;-)

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|You should try building some of the
Debian GNU/Linux   |stuff in main that is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |modern...turning on -Wall is like
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |turning on the pain. -- James Troup


pgpi7JR1hEuPW.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Tollef Fog Heen]

* Russell Coker 

| Please make amends for your error by flaming Lasse again and doing it 
| properly.  ;)

Please excuse David -- he's still in the NM queue and haven't learnt
all the flame-throwing tips&tricks yet. :)

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
Unix _IS_ user friendly... It's just selective about who its friends are.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> *Evil* twin?  You mean one of us isn't?

He's bck.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Russell Coker]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 22:58, Lasse Karkkainen wrote:
>  >> That's the result of reading your (=Debian developers') rude replies
>  >> to very polite questions asked by other people.
>  >
>  > If you claim that your first post was polite I am truly amazed. It was
>  > a very rude and very clueless attack against Branden. You owe him an
>  > apology.
>
> My message was not meant to be polite.

You achieved your aim in that regard, if nothing else.

> After silently reading those for several months, I just wouldn't want to
> go there and post another polite question.

Fuck you too.

> What I didn't know when posting that was that you are trying to release
> Woody very soon. It is acceptable that, at such phase, all time is
> temporarily (for couple of weeks) devoted for it.

It takes more than a couple of weeks to test any large piece of software for 
release.  If you were a programmer you would know this.

> Some people said that I'm not contributing. I don't know if they meant
> Debian or open-source in general. In case of the former, they are right.
> I'm a human with limited resources.

What do you contribute to open source in general?  A search of sourceforge 
and google reveals nothing.

>  > Do you know how to operate CVS and get your OWN copy of 4.2?
>
> LOL. As if I didn't use CVS daily for developement and as if I hadn't
> co'ed CVS-versions of XF few weeks before 4.2.0 was released (and
> several times after that too), to get the hardware support. Every
> version refused to compile here though.

You previously said that it's not difficult to compile it.  Should we 
conclude that you are saying you are not intelligent enough to complete 
simple tasks?

> Anyway, no need to add my address to your mail filters - this will be my

Actually I was thinking of adding your address to a cron job...

-- 
If you send email to me or to a mailing list that I use which has >4 lines
of legalistic junk at the end then you are specifically authorizing me to do
whatever I wish with the message and all other messages from your domain, by
posting the message you agree that your long legalistic sig is void.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 03:16:52PM -0700, David D. W. Downey wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 04:20:00PM -0500, Scott Dier wrote:
> > * Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020417 14:29]:
> > > this "Brandon" person is that you're talking about, and what the heck
> > 
> > Don't worry, I also had a lapse of judgement eariler in the thread.
> 
> No apologies needed, we all know it's his evil twin.

*Evil* twin?  You mean one of us isn't?

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|  Measure with micrometer,
Debian GNU/Linux   |  mark with chalk,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  cut with axe,
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |  hope like hell.


pgpaZzmL4GYas.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[David D. W. Downey]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 04:20:00PM -0500, Scott Dier wrote:
> * Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020417 14:29]:
> > this "Brandon" person is that you're talking about, and what the heck
> 
> Don't worry, I also had a lapse of judgement eariler in the thread.
> 
> -- 
> Scott Dier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.ringworld.org/
> 

No apologies needed, we all know it's his evil twin.

-- 
David D.W. Downey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Upstream - libpam-pgsql.codecastle.com
Debian - Woody: 0.5.2-2   Sid: 0.5.2-3
State - bugs.debian.org/libpam-pgsql


pgpyJjpSfbTEe.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Joseph Carter]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 01:46:54PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Dunno, but I only had to do:
> 
> 1. Download Xxserv.tgz and Xmod.tgz 
>from ftp://ftp.xfree86.org/pub/XFree86/4.2.0/binaries
> 2. Untar over top of xserver-xfree86's files and fix X symlink.
> 3. Put xserver-xfree86 on hold.
> 
> It took all of 10 minutes from a standing start, less time than many
> winers seem to spend on their flames.

I believe the documented process was a little more involved than that, but
not much really.  No need to put Branden's package on hold.  Even Lasse
should be able to do it if he really tries to think about it first.


> Xdm doesn't work, but that's the only breakage I've run into.

... and this comes as a surprise?  Xdm is evil.

-- 
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  I swallowed your goldfish
 
 heh thats a lost cause, like the correct pronounciation of
 "jewelry"
 give it up :-)
 and the correct spelling of "colour" :)
 heh
 and aluminium
 or nuclear weapons
 are you threating me yankee ?
 just cause we don't have the bomb...
 back off ya yellow belly



pgpvwZsauxp1b.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Scott Dier]

* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020417 14:29]:
> this "Brandon" person is that you're talking about, and what the heck

Don't worry, I also had a lapse of judgement eariler in the thread.

-- 
Scott Dier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.ringworld.org/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Lasse Karkkainen]

>> That's the result of reading your (=Debian developers') rude replies 
>> to very polite questions asked by other people.
> If you claim that your first post was polite I am truly amazed. It was
> a very rude and very clueless attack against Branden. You owe him an
> apology.

My message was not meant to be polite. Instead its purpose was to shake
people a bit (and it succeeded). Those polite questions with rude
answers I was referring to can be easily found with a quick search on
Google, if anyone cares.
After silently reading those for several months, I just wouldn't want to 
go there and post another polite question.

What I didn't know when posting that was that you are trying to release
Woody very soon. It is acceptable that, at such phase, all time is
temporarily (for couple of weeks) devoted for it.
The message I manually forwarded to the list.. while Mozilla was sending
it, I noticed that the CC to list was missing and thought that the
reason was me accidentally hitting Reply (instead of Reply All). I
apologize.
Some people said that I'm not contributing. I don't know if they meant
Debian or open-source in general. In case of the former, they are right.
I'm a human with limited resources.
>> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:0.9.8)
> Why doesn't that surprise me?
Because you know that my hardware doesn't work in Debian and I have to
use W98? I realized too late that it was a mistake to get rid of that
Matrox G400.
> Do you know how to operate CVS and get your OWN copy of 4.2?
LOL. As if I didn't use CVS daily for developement and as if I hadn't 
co'ed CVS-versions of XF few weeks before 4.2.0 was released (and 
several times after that too), to get the hardware support. Every 
version refused to compile here though.

I am not going to apologize anything from Branden - I said that he 
doesn't have enough time that doesn't seem like an insult to me. I also 
understand why 4.2.0 won't go in Woody (and I don't care: I can always 
use those "unstable" (or experimental) versions).

Anyway, no need to add my address to your mail filters - this will be my
last post about this topic, on this list. Now that I have surely awaken
you, it's better not waste time flaming here, while you could be
fine-tuning Woody.
Thanks for the greatest distro (if it wasn't the greatest, I wouldn't 
even write to this list: a little dilemma for you;).

- Tronic -

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[The Doctor What]

* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [020417 14:28]:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 11:26:30AM -0500, The Doctor What wrote:
> > I would like to ask you to offer an apology to Brandon, saying that
> > you didn't know that it was a difficult task and maybe say thank you
> > for the work he has done already.  But that's your choice.
> 
> Well, as long as we're in the apology business, you could tell me who
> this "Brandon" person is that you're talking about, and what the heck
> he's doing with my X packages.  I think he owes me an explanation.  ;-)

No...uher. It's the fonts!  It looked like an 'o', I swear!
See, we need anti-aliased fonts!  *grin*

Sorry, that's my bad.

Ciao!

-- 
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in
creating the Internet." -- Al Gore
"If Al Gore invented the internet, I invented spell check." -- Dan Quayle

The Doctor What: "What, Doctor What" http://docwhat.gerf.org/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   KF6VNC


pgpKtpYDwgLME.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 11:26:30AM -0500, The Doctor What wrote:
> I would like to ask you to offer an apology to Brandon, saying that
> you didn't know that it was a difficult task and maybe say thank you
> for the work he has done already.  But that's your choice.

Well, as long as we're in the apology business, you could tell me who
this "Brandon" person is that you're talking about, and what the heck
he's doing with my X packages.  I think he owes me an explanation.  ;-)

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|  When dogma enters the brain, all
Debian GNU/Linux   |  intellectual activity ceases.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  -- Robert Anton Wilson
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


pgp79mxk0fMHb.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Robert van der Meulen]

Quoting Joey Hess ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Xdm doesn't work, but that's the only breakage I've run into.

I'm taking a pretty wild guess that you need X because of a bright shiny new
card that's only supported by 4.2 ? I ran into the same problem with a new
radeon card, and solved it the same, with one exception: I used the X server
included in the gatos [1] ati.2 driver package. This seems not to be a
radeon-specific server, but it _is_ 4.2, and works fine with the xfree86.org
binaries; furthermore it does support the authentication mechanism that's
missing from the xfree86.org binaries (which breaks xdm and others).
I'm currently running a rockstable X with xv and DRI support, on a xinerama
dualhead 19" (3200x1200) desktop, and haven't experienced any X-related
crashes yet (knocks wood).

Greets,
Robert
-- 
( o>  Linux Generation  

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Joey Hess]

Joseph Carter wrote:
> I recall seeing someplace a document which describes how to add XFree86
> 4.1's server to Debian's older 4.0.x X packages.  A quick google doesn't
> turn it up, but perhaps if someone has a link to the document it could be
> generalized and included someplace that users can find it?  It covered
> installing the XFree server from source or binary and procedure to remove
> it when Branden finished XFree 4.1 packages.  (I hope the document was not
> taken down when 4.1 packages were ready, everything in it still applies
> today to 4.2..)

Dunno, but I only had to do:

1. Download Xxserv.tgz and Xmod.tgz 
   from ftp://ftp.xfree86.org/pub/XFree86/4.2.0/binaries
2. Untar over top of xserver-xfree86's files and fix X symlink.
3. Put xserver-xfree86 on hold.

It took all of 10 minutes from a standing start, less time than many
winers seem to spend on their flames.

Xdm doesn't work, but that's the only breakage I've run into.

-- 
see shy jo


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[The Doctor What]

* Lasse Karkkainen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [020415 22:04]:
> Someone said that X is a difficult package to maintain and that there is 
> nothing wrong if PACKAGING it takes 3+ months. People have managed to 
> install it from sources in matter of HOURS (well, that didn't work for 
> me, dunno why). Based on that packaging it during a single weekend 
> should be possible. As we are talking about UNSTABLE here, no real 
> testing needs to be done before releasing - that's what the Debian 
> Unstable is for, right?

I'm going to try to explain why this isn't the case.

Just so you know, I was, for the most part, the only developer for
TurboLinux version 6.0 through 6.0.4 (give or take).  I took over
for someone else who did the beginning part of migrating to the new
libc.  I had someone help by doing the X packages, but I always had
to fix "inter-packages" issues.

TurboLinux *never* had a package as good as Debian had at the time.

To package something for debian, it must not just *compile* for the
developer (which is all we really cared about at the time at
TurboLinux), but it must compile on the rebuild server.

It also must compile on multiple platforms.   That isn't usually a
trival task (we only cared about x86 at TL).

Dependencies between packages is hard. Since xfree includes the x
libs, a *lot* of packages depend on it.  No one would be happy if
installing X4.2.0 removed all their x applications.

In addition, imaging that Brandon created a crappy, done on a
weekend, package for x.  Can you imagine the number of bugs?  And
Brandon would have to reply to them all.  Under the way bugs are
managed in Debian (even under unstable) this would be hell for him.

Now, maybe you have some point.  Perhaps some packages should be
flagged as "very alpha" (ie, pre-beta).  In that case, bugs
*wouldn't* be allowed to be posted against it, and maybe the user
would have to manually say "I understand this package could destroy
everything" for each alpha package.

That might be a nice feature.  But then again.  When Brandon gets
packages that are that quality, he usually makes them available
seperately, which has a similar effect.

Finally, you mentioned that you thought that maybe someone else
should do the new packages since Brandon is busy finishing up X4.1
for woody/testing.

On the surface, it seems like a good idea.  But in practise, it
requires the new developer to be in tight coordination with the
goals of the new developer.  In practise, it would be better if this
(currently fictional) developer finished up 4.1 for Brandon, while
Brandon does the starts on the new one.

Allowing packages as complex as the X packages to upgrade smoothly
is very hard work and Brandon does a very good job.


I hope that I have explained why Brandon is doing a very good job
and that it *is* very hard, despite the fact that it seems like it
should be fairly easy.

I understand your fustration, since this is something that impacts
whether you can use Debian on your new hardware.  But its something
that should be done right.

I don't know how you'll take this email, or how badly you feel after
the responses on the mailing list.  It might be worth knowing that
every so often (about every few months) a flame-Brandon-fest starts.
I don't particularly like this because Brandon does do a good job.

I would like to ask you to offer an apology to Brandon, saying that
you didn't know that it was a difficult task and maybe say thank you
for the work he has done already.  But that's your choice.

Ciao!

-- 
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
(Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.

The Doctor What:  http://docwhat.gerf.org/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   KF6VNC


pgpt13gb9iLM8.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: End This Thread Please [Was: Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again]

[Michael Stone]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 08:42:05AM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
>   Might I point out that Lasse has not replied to any emails since
> yesterday?
> 
>   I think maybe he's gotten the point, you can stop beating on him now ;-)

Or he was trolling and he's laughing too hard to type. Feeding the
trolls only encourages more.

-- 
Mike Stone


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

End This Thread Please [Was: Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again]

[Daniel Burrows]

  Might I point out that Lasse has not replied to any emails since
yesterday?

  I think maybe he's gotten the point, you can stop beating on him now ;-)

*crossing my fingers and hoping this thread dies*,
  Daniel

-- 
/ Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---\
|   Gil-Galad was an Elven king;  |
|   of him the harpers sadly sing.|
\-Evil Overlord, Inc: planning your future today. http://www.eviloverlord.com-/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Sean Middleditch]

On Wed, 2002-04-17 at 06:47, Russell Coker wrote:

> I don't know which sub-version of the GeForce cards I'm using, I just got 
> whatever was cheapest at the time (you'd have to be crazy to buy a high-end 
> NVidia card - they release new models every 6 months and the old models then 
> sell for less than half price).

Wow.  Good point.  I feel retarded now.  (Sean's wallet is hurting after
he replaced one of his old video cards which melted with a Geforce3 Ti
500 at x-mas.)

When I plopped in the nVidia binary drivers, tho, I sure know it looked
great.  ^,^  Zangband has never looked so crisp...

> 
> -- 
> If you send email to me or to a mailing list that I use which has >4 lines
> of legalistic junk at the end then you are specifically authorizing me to do
> whatever I wish with the message and all other messages from your domain, by
> posting the message you agree that your long legalistic sig is void.
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[David D.W. Downey]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Wednesday 17 April 2002 03:59, Russell Coker wrote:

> You didn't use nearly enough obscenity to describe Lasse's behaviour!
>

I didn't want to hurt his little head with all the big words.


> Also the structure of your message was lacking, you used two swear-words
> and two offensive terms, of which only one swear word was used more than
> once. This leads a casual observer to the conclusion that your vocabulary
> is lacking.  I recommend not using a particular swear word or offensive
> term more than once per paragraph, and for variety I suggest introducing a
> new term of offense in every paragraph.
>

Dronal tonage seemed to be something I thought he might understand. I'd hate 
to use something like Anal Retentive Slut-puppy only to get an email back 
like "Umm what does Anal mean?"


> Finally abuse without using offensive terms is good (eg reference to the
> glue Lasse sniffed before posting to Debian-devel).
>

Ok, got me cold on that one. Hmm. so is it considered good taste to use terms 
like buttmunching 5 cent excretement of a 10 cent gutter whore?


> Please make amends for your error by flaming Lasse again and doing it
> properly.  ;)

Ok, I'll try, not sure if his vocabulary is of sufficient quality to get the 
gist of it, but I'll give it a go.

- -- 
David D.W. Downey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
libpam-pgsql Debian Maintainer && Upstream Source
http://libpam-pgsql.codecastle.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8vVqaJRhrFsWna/YRAmdyAJwOFhSBFV4LzVpkq2YG0JiMP0Ls+wCcCj/m
1hxVWv0M3+XnaLYw3wryaaw=
=JYiI
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Russell Coker]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 04:46, David D.W. Downey wrote:
> On Monday 15 April 2002 19:14, Lasse Karkkainen wrote:
>
> 
> stupid shit here
> 
>
> Dude, kiss our collective arses. Do yourself a favor. hit
> http://linuxnewbie.codecastle.com and read every fiucking thing on that
> site, then hit http://linuxdoc.org and read everything on THAT fucking
> site, then hit http://www.debian.org and read everything on THAT fucking
> site.

David, if you're going to use obscene language when emailing someone then you 
should use the level of language that's appropriate to their behaviour.

You didn't use nearly enough obscenity to describe Lasse's behaviour!

Also the structure of your message was lacking, you used two swear-words and 
two offensive terms, of which only one swear word was used more than once.  
This leads a casual observer to the conclusion that your vocabulary is 
lacking.  I recommend not using a particular swear word or offensive term 
more than once per paragraph, and for variety I suggest introducing a new 
term of offense in every paragraph.

Finally abuse without using offensive terms is good (eg reference to the glue 
Lasse sniffed before posting to Debian-devel).

Please make amends for your error by flaming Lasse again and doing it 
properly.  ;)

-- 
If you send email to me or to a mailing list that I use which has >4 lines
of legalistic junk at the end then you are specifically authorizing me to do
whatever I wish with the message and all other messages from your domain, by
posting the message you agree that your long legalistic sig is void.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Russell Coker]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:30, Marc Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 07:37:11PM -0700, David D.W. Downey wrote:
> > On Tuesday 16 April 2002 00:29, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > > Marc Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Probably Geforce4 (usable with the nonfree Nvidia-driver on 4.1.*) or
> > > some Laptop-Chipset (Savage-something?)
> >
> > Well, so much for me going after 4.2 on my own then. I've got an nVidia
> > GX200 4X AGP, basicly the same family. Then again, while I do bust
> > Branden's nuts on the debian-devel channel about wanting 4.2, he knows
> > I'm joking. Perfectly content with 4.1.x.
>
> I didn't say this.  I have no idea what might or might not be supported
> regarding GeForce cards.  Don't own one, don't plan on owning one.

I own two GeForce cards.  One of them is running on the binary-only driver 
from NVidia, and the other is using the frame-buffer driver (and the NVidia 
frame buffer).  Both work fine in 4.1.x.

I don't know which sub-version of the GeForce cards I'm using, I just got 
whatever was cheapest at the time (you'd have to be crazy to buy a high-end 
NVidia card - they release new models every 6 months and the old models then 
sell for less than half price).

-- 
If you send email to me or to a mailing list that I use which has >4 lines
of legalistic junk at the end then you are specifically authorizing me to do
whatever I wish with the message and all other messages from your domain, by
posting the message you agree that your long legalistic sig is void.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Richard Braakman]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 08:41:41AM +1200, Corrin Lakeland wrote:
> Incidentially, Lasse's email did convince me that Branden's job isn't just 
> hard, it is _really_ hard.  The idea of having to deal with daily emails like 
> this horrifies me.  I can see where his abrasive style comes from ;-)

No... he had his style long before he became X maintainer :)
The bitterness, on the other hand...  But X will do that to a man.
Imagine what it's like, not being able to browse "XXX" sites without
being reminded of the latest chipset driver bugs.

Richard Braakman


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Jonas Meurer]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 05:14:51AM +0300, Lasse Karkkainen wrote:
> You are probably sick and tired of this topic, but ...
> IT'S A QUARTER YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF 4.2.0 RELEASE!
> Yes, it really has been three (3) months (!) since it was released.
> [...] 
> In that case I suggest hiring a paid programmer for the 
> job (if that should happen, I am willing to donate).

Mh, donate to Branden enough to give up job, then he has more time for
building packages.

Bye
 Jonas

-- 
Black holes were created when God divided by 0.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Marc Wilson]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 07:37:11PM -0700, David D.W. Downey wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 April 2002 00:29, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > Marc Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Probably Geforce4 (usable with the nonfree Nvidia-driver on 4.1.*) or
> > some Laptop-Chipset (Savage-something?)
> >
> Well, so much for me going after 4.2 on my own then. I've got an nVidia GX200 
> 4X AGP, basicly the same family. Then again, while I do bust Branden's nuts 
> on the debian-devel channel about wanting 4.2, he knows I'm joking. Perfectly 
> content with 4.1.x. 

I didn't say this.  I have no idea what might or might not be supported
regarding GeForce cards.  Don't own one, don't plan on owning one.

-- 
Marc Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.cox.net/msw



pgpJTmz6srF8t.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[David D.W. Downey]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Monday 15 April 2002 19:14, Lasse Karkkainen wrote:


stupid shit here


Dude, kiss our collective arses. Do yourself a favor. hit 
http://linuxnewbie.codecastle.com and read every fiucking thing on that site, 
then hit http://linuxdoc.org and read everything on THAT fucking site, then 
hit http://www.debian.org and read everything on THAT fucking site.

Then attempt to write your own X11 4.2.x package, talk to Branden (if he's 
even willing to listen to you after your fucked up drivel) and ask him to 
tell you the top 5 things he finds difficult about maintaining and packaging 
X11 for Debian.  Don't ask for clarification of what he means, he's busy 
taking care of those that truly appreciate him. 

Now, YOU go and attempt to duplicate what HE's doing. Read the debhelper man 
pages and docs and info pages. Read up on what the fuck Debian is even about 
(as you definitely have no clue at ALL)

Personally, I think you'r an asshole for your comments and statements, But 
then again, no one has to be perfect. But I DO take exception at your 
slanderous remarks against Branden. Why? BECAUSE NO ONE ELSE WANTS HIS JOB!
Why? BECAUSE IT'S ONE OF THE BIGGEST BITCHES TO TAKE CARE OF! And here you 
come waltzing in the door thinking you know what the fuck is right or wrong 
to do with a package. HAve you even ASKED why Branden has not packaged it? 
have you even READ what kindof support 4.2 provides? Hell, do you even know 
what the fucking homepage IS for the X11 project? Do you know how to operate 
CVS and get your OWN copy of 4.2?

Probably not. So, in my mind that only leaves one status for you.

Rat Bastard. Thus, I love killfiles for such sniveling creatures as the 
uneducated and unwilling to remove that lack of knowledge.
 
- -- 
David D.W. Downey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
libpam-pgsql Debian Maintainer && Upstream Source
http://libpam-pgsql.codecastle.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8vOIiJRhrFsWna/YRArjTAJ4zqtKwZjugcsSZsbNNc0uY/A8fqwCfdzKD
dB4zM65+ALtalPIjTRwSNHw=
=+pWz
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[David D.W. Downey]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 16 April 2002 00:29, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Marc Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Probably Geforce4 (usable with the nonfree Nvidia-driver on 4.1.*) or
> some Laptop-Chipset (Savage-something?)
>
Well, so much for me going after 4.2 on my own then. I've got an nVidia GX200 
4X AGP, basicly the same family. Then again, while I do bust Branden's nuts 
on the debian-devel channel about wanting 4.2, he knows I'm joking. Perfectly 
content with 4.1.x. 

Branden, rockin job bro, fuck what anyone else says. 
- -- 
David D.W. Downey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
libpam-pgsql Debian Maintainer && Upstream Source
http://libpam-pgsql.codecastle.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8vN/cJRhrFsWna/YRAko0AJ4gzMrw63eiZEGba9kT/f5HJMJ1OACfUNKw
bzj+VL1/ltAeInv0s7/aUH4=
=2YaA
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Joseph Carter]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 09:43:51AM -0400, Ashton Trey Belew wrote:
>   Just thought I would pipe in that I am supremely happy with the X
> 4.1 package.

I can only add to the discussion that XFree 4.1 also runs fine with the
XFree 4.2.0 server.  The server is much simpler to compile (or even NOT
compile for that matter if you'd prefer not to do so) than the whole of
XFree86, and is all that is required to add support for the latest
hardware.

I recall seeing someplace a document which describes how to add XFree86
4.1's server to Debian's older 4.0.x X packages.  A quick google doesn't
turn it up, but perhaps if someone has a link to the document it could be
generalized and included someplace that users can find it?  It covered
installing the XFree server from source or binary and procedure to remove
it when Branden finished XFree 4.1 packages.  (I hope the document was not
taken down when 4.1 packages were ready, everything in it still applies
today to 4.2..)

-- 
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   Here we go again
 
 I should probably reboot...
 ok brb
 So, what apart form avoiding virii, memory leaks, and rampant
 crashing does Linux reallhy offer :)
 reliable multitasking?



pgpaeRqdQqmhZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Roger So]

在 Tue, 2002-04-16 12:14, Lasse Karkkainen 寫道： 
> Hi!   (it's my first post here)
> 
> You are probably sick and tired of this topic, but ...
> IT'S A QUARTER YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF 4.2.0 RELEASE!
> 
> Yes, it really has been three (3) months (!) since it was released.

Why do people like you insists on having the latest version of
everything without making sure that it's actually _better_ than what we
have? 

Rather than repeating what most others have said, I'll give you one more
reason why not rushing 4.2.0 into woody is a good thing: the whole i18n
architecture changed from 4.1 to 4.2, and many bugs _were_ introduced in
the transition -- like X clients segfault on startup if Xlib can't find
the input method specified in the environment, and so on.  I for one am
glad that Branden is not rushing things through.

Just because upstream calls something a ".0" or "stable" release,
doesn't automatically mean that it meets our (and our users') quality
expectations.  As you said yourself, 

> XF is way too essential component to be ignored like this.

Regards

Roger


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Matthew Palmer]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Lasse Karkkainen wrote:

> Someone said that X is a difficult package to maintain and that there is 
> nothing wrong if PACKAGING it takes 3+ months. People have managed to 
> install it from sources in matter of HOURS (well, that didn't work for 
> me, dunno why). Based on that packaging it during a single weekend 
> should be possible.

You've admitted you have no clue about Debian internals, and yet you are
willing to espouse what should be possible, without any actual knowledge of 
what needs to be done.

Does that strike you as a little naive?

> As we are talking about UNSTABLE here, no real 
> testing needs to be done before releasing - that's what the Debian 
> Unstable is for, right?

No.

Although unstable is the first stop for packages, that doesn't mean that
maintainers should dump whatever cruft they feel like in there - and
ESPECIALLY when it's something as big and complex as XFree.  That's just not
something you want to think about doing, unless you have a desire to piss
off an extraordinary number of people.

> > while. "I have too much stuff to do to actually help Debian, but I'm
> > willing to order around volunteers." Part of the reason Branden is the X
> > maintainer, is because X is possibly the hardest package in Debian to
> > maintain, and Branden is willing and able to do a job most of the rest
> > of us couldn't or wouldn't.
> 
> I have seen that same model happening in many places (trustees of 
> associations, software developers, ..). Everybody thinks that someone is 
> vital for what he is doing and no-one is willing to replace him... Well, 
> then someone else comes and questions that - and gets lots of flame. 
> Often that still, finally, leads to replacing that person with a new, 
> "fresh" one. Usually the change is for the good, after all. People who 
> have done something for ages just don't care about it anymore, but new 
> people are willing to devote all their time for it..

Unless, of course, their name is tronic.  In which case they just feel that
they should spout off at those who are doing the real work, without any
intention of doing any themselves.

A few sayings come to mind:

Before criticising someone, walk a mile in their shoes.

Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

I debated putting this one in, but it seems to sum it up rather nicely:

FOAD.


-- 
---
#include 
Matthew Palmer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Corrin Lakeland]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 16:49, Riku Voipio wrote:
> I guess after seeing your messages Branden goes out for a beer
> rather an opens a editor to serve ungrateful kids.

Incidentially, Lasse's email did convince me that Branden's job isn't just 
hard, it is _really_ hard.  The idea of having to deal with daily emails like 
this horrifies me.  I can see where his abrasive style comes from ;-)

Corrin



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Jan-Hendrik Palic]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 02:57:52PM +0300, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 06:03:47AM +0300, Lasse Karkkainen wrote:
>> Someone said that X is a difficult package to maintain and that there
>> is nothing wrong if PACKAGING it takes 3+ months. People have managed
>> to install it from sources in matter of HOURS (well, that didn't work
>> for me, dunno why).
>Man, I am seriously thinking about putting this quote to my archive of
>best laughs ever :)

*save* into my collection of fortunes :)

-- 
One time, you all will be emulated by linux!


Jan- Hendrik Palic
Url:"http://www.billgotchy.de";
E-Mail: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- C++ UL++ P+++ L+++ E W++ N+ o+ K- w--- 
O- M- V- PS++ PE Y+ PGP++ t--- 5- X+++ R-- tv- b++ DI-- D+++ 
G+++ e+++ h+ r++ z+ 
--END GEEK CODE BLOCK--


pgpBKLfLpLCEC.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Josip Rodin]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 04:32:44PM +0200, Jordi Mallach wrote:
> > bleeding software.  Brandon has added functionality to our X packages
> 
> Run, Scott :)

He also misspelled yet emphasized "definitely", so I think the fiend will be
able to let it slip ;)

-- 
 2. That which causes joy or happiness.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Josip Rodin]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 05:14:51AM +0300, Lasse Karkkainen wrote:
> So, I suggest that anyone, with enough knowledge and TIME, reading this,
> would volunteer as XFree package maintainer.

Doesn't the fact that nobody has openly volunteered to do so indicate to you
that there just aren't many (any?) such people?

> I am just saying what other developers don't dare to say, as it might
> damage and rip apart their magic castle. This risk must be taken, or
> Debian may die anyhow.

Debian developers are generally all _but_ quiet little sheep. Were there
cause for major disgruntlement, there would be major disgruntlement.
I submit the mailing list and bug tracking system archives as proof.

Let me put it this way: in the eyes of every clueful bystander, Branden's
reputation sinks from the starting value of, say, 100, by 0.1 with every day
the new version release is delayed. (At the same time there can be other
fluctuations in the imaginary reputation value, of course. :) Your
reputation sinks from the starting value of 0, by 10.0 with every clueless
sentence.

> Anyway, no-one will volunteer as long as Branden is officially working on
> it,

Hundreds of packages have been hijacked in the past.

> so I suggest that the first thing to do is getting rid of him.

I can only laugh at this part :))

-- 
 2. That which causes joy or happiness.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Josip Rodin]

On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 07:14:39PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> ObPleaseDon'tFeedTheTroll

http://www.bofhlet.net/trolls.txt :)

-- 
 2. That which causes joy or happiness.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Craig Dickson]

begin  Wilmer van der Gaast  quotation:

> Lasse, please read the following SlashDot comment written by Branden. It
> explains why Woody will not come with 4.2.0:
> 
> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=30663&cid=3297389
> 
> And now feel impressed by his work. ;-)

Thanks for pointing that posting out -- I hadn't seen it before. Up till
now I've just patiently accepted that packaging a new version of XFree86
was a big, time-consuming job, but without really understanding why. This
explains it all very well.

Craig


pgpMU4AANceqT.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Jordi Mallach]

On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 10:09:55PM -0500, Scott Dier wrote:
> bleeding software.  Brandon has added functionality to our X packages

Run, Scott :)

-- 
Jordi Mallach Pérez || [EMAIL PROTECTED] || Rediscovering Freedom,
   aka Oskuro in|| [EMAIL PROTECTED]  || Using Debian GNU/Linux
 Reinos de Leyenda  || [EMAIL PROTECTED]  || http://debian.org

http://sindominio.net  GnuPG public information:  pub  1024D/917A225E 
telnet pusa.uv.es 23   73ED 4244 FD43 5886 20AC  2644 2584 94BA 917A 225E


pgp6CBlfM31HT.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Ashton Trey Belew]

Hello,
Just thought I would pipe in that I am supremely happy with the X
4.1 package.
Have a nice day,
-Trey



pgpT14C75sPP3.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Dmitry Borodaenko]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 06:03:47AM +0300, Lasse Karkkainen wrote:
> Someone said that X is a difficult package to maintain and that there
> is nothing wrong if PACKAGING it takes 3+ months. People have managed
> to install it from sources in matter of HOURS (well, that didn't work
> for me, dunno why).

Man, I am seriously thinking about putting this quote to my archive of
best laughs ever :)

-- 
Dmitry Borodaenko


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Will Newton]

On Tuesday 16 Apr 2002 4:04 am, Lasse Karkkainen wrote:

> Well, it seems that you almost need 4.2.0 for Woody anyway, if it is
> going to work with any recent hardware (unless you are aiming for
> servers only). Or are you going to hack 4.2.0 display drivers into 4.1.0?

As it happens 4.2.0 seems to have a lot of bugs of it's own.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Rodrigo Moya]

On Tue, 2002-04-16 at 10:20, Russell Coker wrote:
> 
> Someone as stupid as Lasse is unlikely to live very long anyway.
> 
> Maybe we need a new sub-distribution, Debian for glue-sniffers?
> 
maybe we need to ignore morons like him. I think him getting tens and
tens of answers to his stupid mail means playing the same game as he
does. Best thing is to completely ignore him, for instance, adding it to
your spammers mail filter, which is what I'm doing right now.

As an example, some weeks ago, when Miguel de Icaza said he would like
GNOME 4.0 to use Mono (which is just his personal opinion, not an actual
plan), we (like 100~ GNOME developers) got a mail from a moron who asked
us to kick Miguel off the GNOME project. AFAIK, nobody answered him,
and, so far, I haven't got another mail from him.

So, please ignore trolls, they don't deserve your time.

And, THANKS to all Debian developers, keep up the good work, my life is
easier thanks to all of you :-)

cheers
-- 
Rodrigo Moya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.gnome-db.org/ - http://www.ximian.com/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Marek Habersack]

** On Apr 16, Andreas Metzler scribbled:
> Marc Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 12:23:27AM -0400, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> >> If you have one of the 3 chipsets only supported in 4.2, there is
> >> nothing stopping you from installing that.
> [...]
> 
> > One of them is Matrox's G550, one of them is one or another of the
> > Radeon's, but what's the third?
> 
> Probably Geforce4 (usable with the nonfree Nvidia-driver on 4.1.*) or
> some Laptop-Chipset (Savage-something?)
Trident-something (CyberBlade, I think) as used in Toshiba Satellite PRO
5600 (IIRC) - works well with the VESA on 4.1, though :)
 
marek


pgpCxRRWNzCIs.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Krzysztof Krzyzaniak]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 07:30:47PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 05:14:51AM +0300, Lasse Karkkainen wrote:
> > You are probably sick and tired of this topic, but ...
> > IT'S A QUARTER YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF 4.2.0 RELEASE!
> > 
> > Yes, it really has been three (3) months (!) since it was released.
> 
> so?  4.1 works just fine.

Not on newport (MIPS). There is only 8bit color (4.2 - 24bit). But I'm happy
with patches from Guido.

  eloy
-- 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  "Taaa. Taaa. W tak pięknych okolicznościach przyrody... i niepowtarzalnej."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Craig Sanders]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 05:14:51AM +0300, Lasse Karkkainen wrote:
> You are probably sick and tired of this topic, but ...
> IT'S A QUARTER YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF 4.2.0 RELEASE!
> 
> Yes, it really has been three (3) months (!) since it was released.

so?  4.1 works just fine.

> Time to throw some gasoline on the flames ... Branden apparently is
> incapable of releasing it. So, I suggest that anyone, with enough
> knowledge and TIME, reading this, would volunteer as XFree package
> maintainer. Branden's comments suggest that he just doesn't have
> enough time for that.

this may shock the hell out of Branden but i think he does an
*excellent* job with the XFree packages.

i may have some disagreements with him on various issues, but i have no
problem at all with the quality or frequency of his work.  debian needs
more developers of his caliber. he took on X (an incredibly difficult
set of packages) when everybody else had too much sense to even think
about doing it and has done a fantastic job with it.

there's a lot more to packaging a program than just compiling it and
hoping that it mostly works on your own system.  if you want that kind
of "quality-control" then try redhat's contrib packages.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
 -- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Marek Habersack]

** On Apr 16, Manoj Srivastava scribbled:
> >>"Lasse" == Lasse Karkkainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>  Lasse> Time to throw some gasoline on the flames ... Branden apparently is
>  Lasse> incapable of releasing it. So, I suggest that anyone, with enough
>  Lasse> knowledge and TIME, reading this, would volunteer as XFree package
>  Lasse> maintainer. Branden's comments suggest that he just doesn't have
>  Lasse> enough time for that.
> 
>   This demonstrates you have no clue what it takes to package
>  and test something the size and complexity of X. It also shows you do
>  not have the commitment to quality that characterizes debian. 
To give the guy a clue, Red Hat (please, don't start another flamewar anyone
:)) hires a full-time employee to _mostly_ work on the XFree packages. That
should even convice Lasse The Troll that there must be something hard in
packaging such a beast (I hope it will make it into his nut sized brain...
:>)
 
marek

p.s. and I found the poster on Branden's XFree page very amusing :P


pgpNtzaMvpZtt.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Peter Mathiasson]

On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 09:58:49PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>   You are, of course, free to package your own private X
>  system.  After all, you seem to think you have a clue about the
>  amount of work that entails.

"People have managed to install it from sources in matter of HOURS
(well, that didn't work for me, dunno why)."

-- 
Peter Mathiasson, peter at mathiasson dot nu, http://www.mathiasson.nu
GPG Fingerprint: A9A7 F8F6 9821 F415 B066 77F1 7FF5 C2E6 7BF2 F228


pgp3nT5ZfeSil.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Jérôme Marant]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 10:20:16AM +0200, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 04:57, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > On Mon, 2002-04-15 at 21:14, Lasse Karkkainen wrote:
> > > Hi!   (it's my first post here)
> > >
> > > You are probably sick and tired of this topic, but ...
> > > IT'S A QUARTER YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF 4.2.0 RELEASE!
> > >
> > > Yes, it really has been three (3) months (!) since it was released.
> > >
> > > No, I am NOT willing to prepare and release that package.
> >
> > Wow.  What an idiot.
> >
> > Here's an idea: the next time we have someone complain about potato
> > being so old and woody taking so long, let's say, "Hey, you know, this
> > 'tronic2' guy flamed us real bad for not including XFree86 4.2, so we're
> > postponing woody for six more months to get it in.  Feel free to talk to
> > him if this bothers you."
> >
> > The only problem is that we'd likely be named accessories to the
> > inevitable murder this would trigger.
> 
> Someone as stupid as Lasse is unlikely to live very long anyway.
> 
> Maybe we need a new sub-distribution, Debian for glue-sniffers?

  I personaly had a very good laugh reading his first message and
  I did not take it seriously because such a rant cannot be really
  serious. This is a kind of counterpart of Debian's popularity.  

-- 
Jérôme Marant


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Russell Coker]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 04:57, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-04-15 at 21:14, Lasse Karkkainen wrote:
> > Hi!   (it's my first post here)
> >
> > You are probably sick and tired of this topic, but ...
> > IT'S A QUARTER YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF 4.2.0 RELEASE!
> >
> > Yes, it really has been three (3) months (!) since it was released.
> >
> > No, I am NOT willing to prepare and release that package.
>
> Wow.  What an idiot.
>
> Here's an idea: the next time we have someone complain about potato
> being so old and woody taking so long, let's say, "Hey, you know, this
> 'tronic2' guy flamed us real bad for not including XFree86 4.2, so we're
> postponing woody for six more months to get it in.  Feel free to talk to
> him if this bothers you."
>
> The only problem is that we'd likely be named accessories to the
> inevitable murder this would trigger.

Someone as stupid as Lasse is unlikely to live very long anyway.

Maybe we need a new sub-distribution, Debian for glue-sniffers?

-- 
If you send email to me or to a mailing list that I use which has >4 lines
of legalistic junk at the end then you are specifically authorizing me to do
whatever I wish with the message and all other messages from your domain, by
posting the message you agree that your long legalistic sig is void.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Andreas Metzler]

Marc Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 12:23:27AM -0400, Sean Middleditch wrote:
>> If you have one of the 3 chipsets only supported in 4.2, there is
>> nothing stopping you from installing that.
[...]

> One of them is Matrox's G550, one of them is one or another of the
> Radeon's, but what's the third?

Probably Geforce4 (usable with the nonfree Nvidia-driver on 4.1.*) or
some Laptop-Chipset (Savage-something?)

> And actually, the G550 is a no-brainer to add support for and re-do the
> package. ^_^

And until then, there is www.matrox.com, featuring precompiled drivers
for 4.[01].*.
 cu andreas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Wilmer van der Gaast]

Lasse, please read the following SlashDot comment written by Branden. It
explains why Woody will not come with 4.2.0:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=30663&cid=3297389

And now feel impressed by his work. ;-)

-- 
*=-+-__
   |[EMAIL PROTECTED]: _ Ugh! Nio2f says something: __
   : http://www.lintux.cx/ |/ i and be the withat to is as it h \
~~-+-=-+~+-=*


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Ari Makela]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 06:04:09AM +0300, Lasse Karkkainen wrote:

> That's the result of reading your (=Debian developers') rude replies to 
> very polite questions asked by other people.

If you claim that your first post was polite I am truly amazed. It was
a very rude and very clueless attack against Branden. You owe him an 
apology.

If someone was rude to you you got what you asked for. 

-- 
Ari Makela  [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://arska.org/hauva/

"Sailing is, after all, a kind of grace, a kind of magic." - Phil Berman


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Martin Pool]

On 16 Apr 2002, Lasse Karkkainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Forgot to cc this to the list.. The message is attached.

Here's another clue, for free: when somebody specifically replies to
you rather to the list, and points that out in the message body, they
probably had a reason.  Going back on to the list is not perfect
etiquette.

> It's the hardware support. People are getting sick of VGA/VESA. I 
> thought that it would be obvious.

Hyperbole is not making you any more credible.  For example, I'm using
a 64MB FireGL2 (which does not even support VESA) on Brendan's xf86
4.1.

> the problem is that I know next to nothing about Debian.

So I see. :-)

Please do some reading first.  You might, for example, start here:

  http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

  http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/

(I know not everybody loves esr, but I think most would agree he's
more informed here than Lasse.)

Assuming you actually want to get better software and not just start
flamewars those documents should help.

> Also, if Branden is working on 4.1.0, why doesn't someone else do
> 4.2.0? Sounds like two separate projects to me.

The thing about most free software lists is that people are basically
not interested in your opinion about this until you can demonstrate
that it is an *informed* opinion.  Since you've admitted and
demonstrated you don't actually know anything much about XFree86 or
Debian (socially or politically) you're not doing well so far.  

Offering money comes second to having a clue, but it ought to be
something reasonably related to the effort involved, like say USD10k.
I have a feeling you had about $10 in mind.

> Then I'll be spending lot of time in the local library, trying to learn 
> how *nix/Debian work, 

That would be good.  Keep away from the email terminals :-)

Lasse, if you need more help understanding why your bozo bit just got
set, then please reply to me, not to the list.

-- 
Martin 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Bas Zoetekouw]

Hi Lasse!

You wrote:

> You are probably sick and tired of this topic, but ...
> IT'S A QUARTER YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF 4.2.0 RELEASE!

Congratulations. Now please return to your Redhat box.

-- 
Kind regards,
+---+
| Bas Zoetekouw  | Si l'on sait exactement ce   |
|| que l'on va faire, a quoi|
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | bon le faire?|
|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |   Pablo Picasso  |
+---+ 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Paul Hedderly]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 12:01:10AM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 06:30:20AM +0300, Lasse Karkkainen <[EMAIL 
> PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
> > I guess you didn't read my original message: the problem is that I know 
> > next to nothing about Debian.
> 
>   Yes, that sums it up pretty well.
> 
>   I'm feeling a bit generous, so I'll hand you a piece of advice, gratis.
> If I had to say what the fastest way is to get yourself flamed or ignored,
> it would probably be this:
> 

Aw Daniel - Don't go giving him a clue, I was really enjoying read
his drivel - haven't read anything quite like it for ages!

(At first I really thought he was joking...)

--
Paul


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Rich Rudnick]

On Mon, 2002-04-15 at 21:49, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 06:28:50AM +0300, Lasse Karkkainen wrote:
> > What comes to encouraging other people - guess what I'm doing right now.
>  
> No you are definetly not. You are pissing people off. 
> 
> > Other platforms aren't nearly as significant as i386 (not many users, no 
> > much new hardware).
> 
> You're arrogance makes me wonder if George W. Bush is related to you.
> 
> I'll give you a hint: we are volunteers, and we do this because it's
> fun. Messages like yours, that demand service for free just disgust.
> I guess after seeing your messages Branden goes out for a beer 
> rather an opens a editor to serve ungrateful kids.
> 

I'll chip in to pay for the beer, as long as he comes back.

(I'm just a user, and buying beer for developers could be my best
contribution :)
-- 
first impressions are bunk (unknown)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Marc Wilson]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 12:23:27AM -0400, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> If you have one of the 3 chipsets only supported in 4.2, there is
> nothing stopping you from installing that.  Except that you are instead
> mucking around spouting ideas straight from your ass on a mailing list,
> instead of learning how to do what you need to (i.e., build X).

One of them is Matrox's G550, one of them is one or another of the
Radeon's, but what's the third?

And actually, the G550 is a no-brainer to add support for and re-do the
package. ^_^

/me wuvs his G550...

-- 
Marc Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.cox.net/msw


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Riku Voipio]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 06:28:50AM +0300, Lasse Karkkainen wrote:
> What comes to encouraging other people - guess what I'm doing right now.
 
No you are definetly not. You are pissing people off. 

> Other platforms aren't nearly as significant as i386 (not many users, no 
> much new hardware).

You're arrogance makes me wonder if George W. Bush is related to you.

I'll give you a hint: we are volunteers, and we do this because it's
fun. Messages like yours, that demand service for free just disgust.
I guess after seeing your messages Branden goes out for a beer 
rather an opens a editor to serve ungrateful kids.

-- 
Riku Voipio|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
kirkkonummentie 33 |+358 40 8476974  --+--
02140 Espoo|   |
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.  |


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Sean Middleditch]

Ack, I don't like doing this, but I'm provoked now...



Fucking idiot!!!

On Mon, 2002-04-15 at 23:30, Lasse Karkkainen wrote:
> Forgot to cc this to the list.. The message is attached.
> 
> 
> 

> From: Lasse Karkkainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Martin Pool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again
> Date: 16 Apr 2002 06:28:50 +0300
> 
> > I think your case would be more convincing if you mentioned some
> > particular reason why Debian ought to upgrade.  Presumably it supports
> > more cards or something.  Having the current version is not super
> > important in and of itself.
> 
> It's the hardware support. People are getting sick of VGA/VESA. I 
> thought that it would be obvious.

I own some of the most recent/exotic video hardware out there, and it
works fine on Debian.  I'd say there are less video cards that fail to
run on X 4.1 than there are video hardware Windows never has a chance of
supporting (read: big SGI coolness)

Hey, guest what, most of the odd drivers that *don't* work at 100% don't
work in 4.2 either, because the hardware companies didn't release specs.

If you have one of the 3 chipsets only supported in 4.2, there is
nothing stopping you from installing that.  Except that you are instead
mucking around spouting ideas straight from your ass on a mailing list,
instead of learning how to do what you need to (i.e., build X).

> 
> > I think Debian should put all its resources right at the moment into a
> > freeze first of all.
> 
> So, Debian has a fixed number of developers, all working at 100%? I 
> thought that it was fuzzy number of developers working when they feel 
> like they are able and want to code (which is what free software is all 
> about, IMO).

Yes, you are right.  And Free Software should also have the advantage of
not having assholes shove their values down the developers' throats with
absolutely no contributions of their own.

Give me, and everyone else, one good reason why we should listen to your
ideas?  Why we should get rid of a developer that made better X packages
than any other distro?  Why Debian can't want a moment longer for X 4.2,
instead of letting the dumbasses flood the low-quality distros?

> 
> > Nobody is stopping you building your own version of XF86 4.2 debs and
> > putting them up on a web page, or encouraging/paying other people to
> 
> I guess you didn't read my original message: the problem is that I know 
> next to nothing about Debian.

That's obvious.  If you don't know anything about Debian, how in all the
fucking hells do you expect to be able to "encourage" developers to make
better packages?

You do *NOT* understand a single goddamn thing you are talking about. 
You know this.  We know this.  Why the hell can't you accept that?  You
might as well try to tell a nuclear physicist how to do *his* job.

> 
>  > do so.  Mere assertion that other people could do a better job than
>  > Branden is not very persuasive.
> 
> Maybe not *better* job, but they could do it *now* .. Also, if Branden 
> is working on 4.1.0, why doesn't someone else do 4.2.0? Sounds like two 
> separate projects to me.

Why the hell would we want a sub-par package in Debian?  You said you
are willing to pay a developer to package X4.2... go ahead and do so. 
That shitty package won't be in Debian, but you can use it.

Now isn't important.  Stability is.  I've used "now" based distros, and
guess what?  They crash and lockup a *lot*.  (that being once a week or
so, which is a lot for me.)  You are fully free to use one of them
instead of Debian.

> 
> What comes to encouraging other people - guess what I'm doing right now.

Encouraging them to what?  Again, you have no idea what the hell you are
talking about, as you stated yourself.  Learn what the hell you're
talking about *first*, then try to "help" the project.

Trust me, it doesn't work well doing those in reverse.

> 
> > At reasonable rates, I would expect it to cost at least USD1,
> > possibly a lot more, to build and test a reasonable combination of
> > platforms and systems.
> 
> I believe "Unstable" (or even "Testing") is for testing and there surely 
> are people willing to test it. Putting it together so that it runs on 
> i386 really shouldn't be a big problem for any Debian developer.

Well, hey, guess what?  You're wrong!  Again, you don't know what you're
talking about.  What you "believe" testing or unstable for is
irrelevant.  If you want to know what they *are* for, it's clearly
documented on the Debian website, which it seems you have read much on. 
Remove your head from your ass, go to the website, and try th

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Daniel Burrows]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 06:30:20AM +0300, Lasse Karkkainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
was heard to say:
> I guess you didn't read my original message: the problem is that I know 
> next to nothing about Debian.

  Yes, that sums it up pretty well.

  I'm feeling a bit generous, so I'll hand you a piece of advice, gratis.
If I had to say what the fastest way is to get yourself flamed or ignored,
it would probably be this:

  Barge into a technical discussion group focussed on a topic you clearly
and admittedly haven't a clue on.  Attack one of the most prominent and
technically respected members of the group.  Suggest that he is incompetent
to perform a particular task, one in which his past and present performance
is widely acknowledged to be superb.  Suggest that this task, known to
be complex and difficult, is easy because you did something passingly
similar once.  Finish with vague and unsubstantiated predictions of
catastrophic results if your outrageous recommendations are not followed.

  In fact, I'm having a lot of difficulty imagining anything that could
make your credibility on this list drop faster and harder than you're
managing right now.  I suggest that you do a small amount of research
before posting again; maybe even try to learn from the other replies
you've gotten.

  If you stubbornly persist in your current path, I predict that you
will land in the killfiles of a large proportion of the list readers
within 24-48 hours.  Speaking for myself, I have wasted far too much of
my own time on this email already.

  Daniel

-- 
/ Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> \
| "The spork is strong with him..." -- Fluble |
\ Be like the kid in the movie!  Play chess! -- http://www.uschess.org ---/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Marc Wilson]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 06:30:20AM +0300, Lasse Karkkainen wrote:
> It's the hardware support. People are getting sick of VGA/VESA. I 
> thought that it would be obvious.

Translation: I own one of the umpteen iterations of the Radeon that 4.1.0
doesn't support in a way I think it should, so I'm gonna whine until I get
support for what *I* own, since I'm incapable of doing it for myself.

Am I close?

-- 
Marc Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.cox.net/msw


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Lasse Karkkainen wrote:
> nothing wrong if PACKAGING it takes 3+ months. People have managed to 
> install it from sources in matter of HOURS (well, that didn't work for 
> me, dunno why). Based on that packaging it during a single weekend 

Installing anything from source is usually very very easy, if the source is
not actual Pure Crap(TM).  And it often is.

Packaging it is not. It takes about 200 times more effort than getting it to
compile exactly right (and I should add, something that seems to work may
not be compiled exactly right).

You have no clue about what you are talking about.

> testing needs to be done before releasing - that's what the Debian 
> Unstable is for, right?

No way. That is what Debian *experimental* is for.  Uploading *known* broken
trash to unstable is not acceptable.

> Well, it seems that you almost need 4.2.0 for Woody anyway, if it is 
> going to work with any recent hardware (unless you are aiming for 
> servers only). Or are you going to hack 4.2.0 display drivers into 4.1.0?

Anyone that needs bleeding edge can survive with unstable.  Anyone else will
have to simply either backport 4.2.0 to stable (which should be damn easy,
since stable will be almost identical to sid when the 4.2.0 packages come
out), or wait/pay for someone else to do that.

> > This is about the rudest message I've seen on this mailing list in a
> 
> That's the result of reading your (=Debian developers') rude replies to 
> very polite questions asked by other people.

Please name the faulty parties, with message-ids. I am not doubting you, but
I happen to have read very very few messages where *real* registered
developers flamed users in the last 3 or 4 years.

I can come up with a lot of developers that will flame the living shit out
of other developers (or anyone clearly acting as if he were one, or being
downright insulting [and expecting a flame as a reply] like you were), but
most users are pretty safe from flames.  And most developers will get the
crap flamed out of their behinds from flaming users. 

> vital for what he is doing and no-one is willing to replace him... Well, 

Why should we?  He is doing just fine, and he even manages to tolerate the
abuse from lots of dead-weight, often poorly-manered and sometimes downright
insulting people far better than most of us ever will (or will want to).

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Jamie Wilkinson]

This one time, at band camp, Lasse Karkkainen wrote:
>Time to throw some gasoline on the flames ... Branden apparently is 
>incapable of releasing it. So, I suggest that anyone, with enough 
>knowledge and TIME, reading this, would volunteer as XFree package 
>maintainer. Branden's comments suggest that he just doesn't have enough 
>time for that.

You're 15 days late.

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://spacepants.org/jaq.gpg
 
The email of the species is more deadly than the mail.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Shyamal Prasad]

"Lasse" == Lasse Karkkainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> Surely this is a troll?

Lasse> Nope, I'm for real. Maybe a bit provocative, but for real.

No way!


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Lasse Karkkainen]

Forgot to cc this to the list.. The message is attached.
--- Begin Message ---
I think your case would be more convincing if you mentioned some
particular reason why Debian ought to upgrade.  Presumably it supports
more cards or something.  Having the current version is not super
important in and of itself.
It's the hardware support. People are getting sick of VGA/VESA. I 
thought that it would be obvious.

I think Debian should put all its resources right at the moment into a
freeze first of all.
So, Debian has a fixed number of developers, all working at 100%? I 
thought that it was fuzzy number of developers working when they feel 
like they are able and want to code (which is what free software is all 
about, IMO).

Nobody is stopping you building your own version of XF86 4.2 debs and
putting them up on a web page, or encouraging/paying other people to
I guess you didn't read my original message: the problem is that I know 
next to nothing about Debian.

> do so.  Mere assertion that other people could do a better job than
> Branden is not very persuasive.
Maybe not *better* job, but they could do it *now* .. Also, if Branden 
is working on 4.1.0, why doesn't someone else do 4.2.0? Sounds like two 
separate projects to me.

What comes to encouraging other people - guess what I'm doing right now.
At reasonable rates, I would expect it to cost at least USD1,
possibly a lot more, to build and test a reasonable combination of
platforms and systems.
I believe "Unstable" (or even "Testing") is for testing and there surely 
are people willing to test it. Putting it together so that it runs on 
i386 really shouldn't be a big problem for any Debian developer.

Other platforms aren't nearly as significant as i386 (not many users, no 
much new hardware).

So what if he names you?
Then I'll be spending lot of time in the local library, trying to learn 
how *nix/Debian work, and the release will take forever. Bad choice, really.

Surely this is a troll?
Nope, I'm for real. Maybe a bit provocative, but for real.
- Tronic -
--- End Message ---

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Scott Dier]

* Lasse Karkkainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020415 22:04]:
> should be possible. As we are talking about UNSTABLE here, no real 
> testing needs to be done before releasing - that's what the Debian 
> Unstable is for, right?

You need to do some serious thinking about time constraints of
developers and what matters more, a stable woody release or still
bleeding software.  Brandon has added functionality to our X packages
that outpaces other distributions, and is *definately* not trivial to
implement.

-- 
Scott Dier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.ringworld.org/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Scott Dier]

* Lasse Karkkainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020415 21:16]:
> incapable of releasing it. So, I suggest that anyone, with enough 
> knowledge and TIME, reading this, would volunteer as XFree package 

Go to hell.  Find a bug that is impacting a viable woody release for
may1st and *fix* it, or patch it, or at least put in a constructive
comment.

If you dont see anything a month after woody release, then you might
have some credibility.  But please, go away until then.  We want to
provide a stable release, not a still bleeding release.

-- 
Scott Dier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.ringworld.org/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Manoj Srivastava]

>>"Lasse" == Lasse Karkkainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

 Lasse> Hi!   (it's my first post here)

We can tell.

 Lasse> You are probably sick and tired of this topic, but ...
 Lasse> IT'S A QUARTER YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF 4.2.0 RELEASE!

 Lasse> Yes, it really has been three (3) months (!) since it was released.

 Lasse> Time to throw some gasoline on the flames ... Branden apparently is
 Lasse> incapable of releasing it. So, I suggest that anyone, with enough
 Lasse> knowledge and TIME, reading this, would volunteer as XFree package
 Lasse> maintainer. Branden's comments suggest that he just doesn't have
 Lasse> enough time for that.

This demonstrates you have no clue what it takes to package
 and test something the size and complexity of X. It also shows you do
 not have the commitment to quality that characterizes debian. 

You are, of course, free to package your own private X
 system.  After all, you seem to think you have a clue about the
 amount of work that entails.

manoj
-- 
 Have you ever noticed that the people who are always trying to tell
 you `there's a time for work and a time for play' never find the time
 for play?
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Lasse Karkkainen]

Someone said that X is a difficult package to maintain and that there is 
nothing wrong if PACKAGING it takes 3+ months. People have managed to 
install it from sources in matter of HOURS (well, that didn't work for 
me, dunno why). Based on that packaging it during a single weekend 
should be possible. As we are talking about UNSTABLE here, no real 
testing needs to be done before releasing - that's what the Debian 
Unstable is for, right?

4.2.0 doesn't matter, as it's not going into Woody; what needs to be
done on the X packages is getting the highest quality packages X
packages for Woody, which he is doing just fine.
Well, it seems that you almost need 4.2.0 for Woody anyway, if it is 
going to work with any recent hardware (unless you are aiming for 
servers only). Or are you going to hack 4.2.0 display drivers into 4.1.0?

This is about the rudest message I've seen on this mailing list in a
That's the result of reading your (=Debian developers') rude replies to 
very polite questions asked by other people.

while. "I have too much stuff to do to actually help Debian, but I'm
willing to order around volunteers." Part of the reason Branden is the X
maintainer, is because X is possibly the hardest package in Debian to
maintain, and Branden is willing and able to do a job most of the rest
of us couldn't or wouldn't.
I have seen that same model happening in many places (trustees of 
associations, software developers, ..). Everybody thinks that someone is 
vital for what he is doing and no-one is willing to replace him... Well, 
then someone else comes and questions that - and gets lots of flame. 
Often that still, finally, leads to replacing that person with a new, 
"fresh" one. Usually the change is for the good, after all. People who 
have done something for ages just don't care about it anymore, but new 
people are willing to devote all their time for it..

- Tronic -
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Jeff Licquia]

On Mon, 2002-04-15 at 21:14, Lasse Karkkainen wrote:
> Hi!   (it's my first post here)
> 
> You are probably sick and tired of this topic, but ...
> IT'S A QUARTER YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF 4.2.0 RELEASE!
> 
> Yes, it really has been three (3) months (!) since it was released.
> 
> Time to throw some gasoline on the flames ...

[...]

> No, I am NOT willing to prepare and release that package.

Wow.  What an idiot.

Here's an idea: the next time we have someone complain about potato
being so old and woody taking so long, let's say, "Hey, you know, this
'tronic2' guy flamed us real bad for not including XFree86 4.2, so we're
postponing woody for six more months to get it in.  Feel free to talk to
him if this bothers you."

The only problem is that we'd likely be named accessories to the
inevitable murder this would trigger.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Jason Thomas]

better be careful, talk like that will get you re-elected. :-)

by me anyway!

On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 10:29:06PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 05:14:51AM +0300, Lasse Karkkainen wrote:
> > Hi!   (it's my first post here)
> 
> Fucking idiot. Yes, I can say that now. I'll only be DPL for another ~20
> hours. Here, let me say it again. Fucking idiot.
> 
> Man that felt good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ben (not the DPL for much longer) Collins

-- 
Jason

"I hope you learn speaking English proper I hope speak I me you."
 -- Branden Robinson, 2001


pgpiWC2Mgb7gd.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Ben Collins]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 05:14:51AM +0300, Lasse Karkkainen wrote:
> Hi!   (it's my first post here)

Fucking idiot. Yes, I can say that now. I'll only be DPL for another ~20
hours. Here, let me say it again. Fucking idiot.

Man that felt good.




Ben (not the DPL for much longer) Collins

-- 
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://linux1394.sourceforge.net/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
Deqo   - http://www.deqo.com/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[David Starner]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 05:14:51AM +0300, Lasse Karkkainen wrote:
> Now you can start bashing me.
> 
> - Tronic -

4.2.0 doesn't matter, as it's not going into Woody; what needs to be
done on the X packages is getting the highest quality packages X
packages for Woody, which he is doing just fine.

This is about the rudest message I've seen on this mailing list in a
while. "I have too much stuff to do to actually help Debian, but I'm
willing to order around volunteers." Part of the reason Branden is the X
maintainer, is because X is possibly the hardest package in Debian to
maintain, and Branden is willing and able to do a job most of the rest
of us couldn't or wouldn't.

-- 
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive. 
If you don't have it you're on the other side." 
- K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Thomas Hood]

> Now you can start bashing me.

Since your remarks seem to be deliberately provocative,
let me just point out that X is a large package to take
care of yet there is reason to think that B.R. will
have 4.2 ready before very long, as he has said he will.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Adam McKenna]

ObPleaseDon'tFeedTheTroll

--Adam
-- 
Adam McKenna  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

XFree 4.2.0 - again

[Lasse Karkkainen]

Hi!   (it's my first post here)
You are probably sick and tired of this topic, but ...
IT'S A QUARTER YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF 4.2.0 RELEASE!
Yes, it really has been three (3) months (!) since it was released.
Time to throw some gasoline on the flames ... Branden apparently is 
incapable of releasing it. So, I suggest that anyone, with enough 
knowledge and TIME, reading this, would volunteer as XFree package 
maintainer. Branden's comments suggest that he just doesn't have enough 
time for that.

Before you all start flaming and bashing me..
No, I am NOT willing to prepare and release that package. I know next to 
nothing about Debian internals, and I don't have enough time either 
(with my other projects and a dayjob). Anyway THIS IS NO REASON for me 
to "shut the fuck up" (to quote Branden's welcome-pic, which I have been 
weekly refreshing for couple of months now). I am just saying what other 
developers don't dare to say, as it might damage and rip apart their 
magic castle. This risk must be taken, or Debian may die anyhow.

Of course, if no-one else is capable of maintaining that package, Debian 
is in trouble. In that case I suggest hiring a paid programmer for the 
job (if that should happen, I am willing to donate). XF is way too 
essential component to be ignored like this. Anyway, no-one will 
volunteer as long as Branden is officially working on it, so I suggest 
that the first thing to do is getting rid of him. He can freely continue 
working with smaller projects, but XF is way too big for him, with his 
limited resources (time).

Another solution *I* (yes, my opinion only) could accept would be 
Branden re-evaluating his values, devoting more time for Debian. As a 
proof of that he should release 4.2.0 in one week (the deadline would be 
2002-04-23) and make sure that new releases also get deb'ed in time. Yet 
another option, of course, would be Branden directly naming his successor.

Now you can start bashing me.
- Tronic -
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]