subsurface: FTBFS in experimental

[Lubomir I. Ivanov]

On 26 August 2015 at 05:38, Christoph Anton Mitterer
<calestyo at scientia.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-08-25 at 17:55 -0700, Dirk Hohndel wrote:
>> Being called stupid and arrogant is usually not a great conversation
>> opener, but hey, I've been called worse.
> Well I should have probably immediately apologised along the way, just
> for the sake of politeness...
>
> But the believe to know it much better than everyone else apparently
> does qualifies quite well for arrogance.
> And intentionally trying/wishing to keep the distros, while these are
> at the same time the major and preferred way of software distribution
> for the whole community where oneself comes from... for sure you know
> the German saying "an dem Ast sägen auf dem man sitzt"... so I guess
> that qualifies quite well for not making the smartest decisions.
>
>

your approach for convincing is offensive and unwise.

i'm getting the notion that the Linux distribution maintainers are
simply buthurt for the fact that Linus Torvalds started Subsurface and
as a peace of software it now no longer obeys the Linux distribution
rules; it's setting a bad example at the expense of not being
available everywhere at anytime in the ecosystem.

otherwise, why would you even care if some odd divelog software is no
longer distributed by distro X?

not only the Subsurface mailing list, but surely there are other
people who believe that the most portable kernel (Linux) is wrapped by
distributions in stubborn ideology and separation, which makes
software non-portable...and by non-portable i don't mean "but it can
be *built* everywhere and distributed by our package tools", i mean,
how about:

*) copy-pasting an installer which runs on the same architecture on
multiple distributions and multiple version of the same distribution
from 15 years ago?
*) letting the developer deal with nitsche issues in some horribly
maintained library?

Windows as an OS does that and x86 as modular CPU design also does
that. overhead, bloat and dye space in the expense of portability!

the whole idea of "each distro will build and maintain your software
for you, but it will only run on our distro or child-distros" has the
perspective for job and hobbyist openings and that's *great*, but it
doesn't mean that their work will be focused in the most optimal
software designs ever, architecturally.

lubomir
--