[csw-maintainers] ARCH=all packages

[Peter Bonivart]

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:31 PM, Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> wrote:
> Meaning, you want to have someone else to push your package though, who
> wont hold you to standards.

No, I wanted this for a long time, long before the fork between BW and
OpenCSW actually. But it's typical for you to enlarge a current issue.
You did it with the wiki and you do it now for one package.

You, and all other who are interested, can take a look at the revision
history on the wiki page I linked to if you want to see when I wrote
that. Not that long ago but long before the latest issues between you
and me.

> You claim you want democracy, when things arent going your way.

I can live with democracy, how about you?

> Now, are you going to be an active opencsw maintainer, and update any of
> your OTHER packages? Or just the one package that you wrote for the
> purpose of trying to undermine me?

Nice of you to let others know in your own words what you think of my
effort with pkgutil. Makes a much stronger point than if I had to
repeat something you have said before, that could be questioned but
this you wrote yourself.

> I'll point out that you have over 25 packages under your name, and many of
> them appear to be out of date. Some are woefully out of date. Some only
> somewhat out of date. But some of the ones out of date, are important ones:
>  BIND, dhcp, mailscanner
> Yet you are spending all your time on a package that we dont actually
> "need" at the moment.

Again, before you complain/block others you should clean your own
house. To make just one example, I requested an update of your
antiword to use for my MailScanner. You have 0.33 packaged which I
can't even find listed on their site any longer, the latest 0.37 is
from 2005, too much to ask for you to have had time to update? You
never even replied to me.

To mention BIND is kind of an insult since I very quickly had a safe
version released when there was a large DNS flaw circulating this
summer and I got lots of credit for it. I would again like to thank
those who on short notice helped testing the package. You on the other
hand wasted a few precious days extra, that was the start of a debate
regarding automated release processes. Maybe not the best example for
you to choose...

Regarding the "need" for something besides pkg-get it has popped up
more than once for several reasons, most regarding your closed license
and your total unwillingness to listen to your users.

I think there's plenty that can be improved upon and I already have.

-- 
/peter