summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/38/50725953bf7a7e3eff63ebe43a94bb1852a6db
blob: 49ef02049838f3b67d4bf3b02f5173f8fe72d1bd (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org>)
	id 1V2si5-0005I0-6X for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sat, 27 Jul 2013 00:50:13 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of m.gmane.org
	designates 80.91.229.3 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=80.91.229.3;
	envelope-from=gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org;
	helo=plane.gmane.org; 
Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1V2si1-0007EW-Va
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sat, 27 Jul 2013 00:50:13 +0000
Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org>)
	id 1V2shv-00066O-Ct for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sat, 27 Jul 2013 02:50:03 +0200
Received: from linuxpal.mit.edu ([18.62.1.14])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
	id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Sat, 27 Jul 2013 02:50:03 +0200
Received: from gdt by linuxpal.mit.edu with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
	id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Sat, 27 Jul 2013 02:50:03 +0200
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
From: Greg Troxel <gdt@work.lexort.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 20:45:46 -0400
Message-ID: <smuvc3wu8xx.fsf@linuxpal.mit.edu>
References: <CANEZrP2GvgZP_1z3EoSs3p+db7tZB6JfEVAewLpGE5eRpGgR3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<smumwpcg8sw.fsf@linuxpal.mit.edu>
	<CAAS2fgTxU4fb6n+fHPomOVDkEY+uoepd7QTPMxbxALYm2Sf3kg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130724023526.GD1009@zooko.com>
	<CAAS2fgQJ6B5q4xmB-UfC=jeiYDkqxK71oTvtp7MqHXRn43duTQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP00vN0TFsxnpSO3RoC_aiAbGS9LG9KXM1+KqWRv8YsJXg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: linuxpal.mit.edu
OpenPGP: id=098ED60E
User-Agent: Gnus/5.130008 (Ma Gnus v0.8) Emacs/23.4 (berkeley-unix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:UIAUzFpAmWWjE2TnXypp2jhxgjI=
X-Spam-Score: -3.0 (---)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
	no trust [80.91.229.3 listed in list.dnswl.org]
	-0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS          SPF: HELO matches SPF record
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	-1.5 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
	domain
X-Headers-End: 1V2si1-0007EW-Va
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Linux packaging letter
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 00:50:13 -0000

Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> writes:

> If packagers hear upstreams cry about packaging a lot, I think you should
> keep an open mind that some of them probably know what they're talking
> about. We really shouldn't have to beg and cajole here. Saying "we have our
> reasons and we want you to stop" should be enough.

Asserting without explaining isn't going to work; lots of people think
their code is more special than it is, and most of these claims are
unwarranted.  But, there is a good explanation for the bitcoin case.