Re: debmake: a compromise?
Hi,
I'm unsure what the process of ``bagging'' entails, but it
sounds quite unsavory, and so could we please refrain from doing so?
(I admit, I'm cultuaraly, umm, challenged, when it comes to modern
english [or is it american?] idion).
>>"Nicolás" == Nicolás Lichtmaier <nick@feedback.com.ar> writes:
Nicolás> On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, Richard G. Roberto wrote:
Nicolás> What Christoph was trying to explain you was that if dewbstd
Nicolás> simply inserted commands into the rules file, one vital
Nicolás> capability of debstd would be lost.
I think this happens not to be the case -- we could have the
best of both worlds, with patience, and a bit of work.
Nicolás> And: `Work done is work done'. If you think that these issues
Nicolás> should be hanbdled in a better way, you are free to code a
Nicolás> better utility. You are free to not use debstd (you are free
Nicolás> to run RedHat also).
Quite so. But I do believe that even the best of us (outside a
pantheon) could do with a little bit of constructive critiquing.
Also, we do *not* want everyone coding yet another package
automation tool *before* they come to this forum to discuss
details. (which is the logical requirement for a discussion by your
standards ;-) ;-)
manoj
ps Remember, ;-)
--
Manoj Srivastava <url:mailto:srivasta@acm.org>
Mobile, Alabama USA <url:http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com
Reply to: