From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <513F9DF2.2030803@antcom.de> Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 22:28:18 +0100 From: Roland Stigge MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1362541011.90317.YahooMailNeo@web161401.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5136F3A6.8090400@antcom.de> <513F96BA.4030309@xenomai.org> In-Reply-To: <513F96BA.4030309@xenomai.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai] about Xenomai in Debian and Ubuntu List-Id: Discussions about the Xenomai project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gilles Chanteperdrix Cc: "xenomai@xenomai.org" On 03/12/2013 09:57 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > Roland, at some point I lost track of what your intentions were. In the > following mail: > http://www.xenomai.org/pipermail/xenomai/2012-July/000473.html > > You seemed to agree to take care of the debian directory in xenomai > sources, asking me to simply warn you before a release. > Which I did before the 2.6.2 release in the following mail: > > http://www.xenomai.org/pipermail/xenomai/2012-December/027051.html > > With a list of things which could be changed in the debian/rules file, > inviting you to do what I had understood you had agreed to do. When you propose things, and implement them, fine. That's your decision. When you propose things and I implement them, also fine. That's my decision. But please don't expect me to just follow commands. That's not my nature at all. Sorry. > http://www.xenomai.org/pipermail/xenomai/2012-December/027052.html > You simply told me that you did not even try debian/rules, following > this, Leopold sent a post with a patch to fix the issue before the > release, but your reply could be interpreted as the fact that the patch > was actually broken, you did not send a fixed patch for the update, and > as a result 2.6.2 was released with a broken debian directory. Please don't over-interpret things I actually didn't say at all. Every patch is welcome, including things you propose, and from other contributors. When I see conflicts in the code, I will state that clearly. > Which is why, for the 2.6.2.1 release, I did not warn you (since it had > proved useless anyway) This is also your interpretation of things, and your own decision. Not discussed with me. Sorry when I missed some detail in the past. Please don't let this lead to bad further communication in return, or blaming each other. Thanks, Roland PS: I consider Debian itself the primary source of Debian packages and will continue to do so. When people ask specific questions about those, I'll answer accordingly. PPS: If you consider your tone as helpful towards positive motivation of contributors, please rethink.