motu-release will revert libgems-ruby to the old state.

[Soren Hansen]

On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 02:30:38AM +0200, Stephan Hermann wrote:
> If Lucas would have uploaded that to Debian, I would tell him the
> same, and I would have to find a sponsor to revert that upload.
[...]
> As said, the upload wasn't even discussed with upstream, which is in
> our case Debian. Lucas already objected, and for me, it's enough to
> revert the change. 

You're not making sense here. Lucas' objection is enough to revert
changes, but if Lucas had made the change, his opinion wouldn't mean
anything anymore?

At any rate, we're not bound by Debian's technical decisions. Yes, we're
in the fortunate situation that for the most part, Debian makes
technical sounds decisions and has lots of very good maintainers, whose
opinion we should value, but if Ubuntu wants to go in a different
direction with something, it's entirely in our right to do so. Ubuntu
has a long, succesful history of making somewhat blunt decisions that
deviate from Debian.

> Sym/Hardlinking/copying from /var/lib/gems/* to /usr/local/* is wrong
> and dangerous without notifying the sysadmin, and even with a notify
> it's wrong and dangerous.

I've heard this argument a few times during this discussion. I'm curious
to know if you think we should patch make(1) or cp(1) to not be able to
put things in /usr/local/bin either?

> That means, I do like people who object other peoples decisions. The
> question was raised on this and u-m,u-d mailinglist and many people
> objected. At least two or three people were in favour of the change,
> just because they had to (think of your team lead in your company who
> doesn't favour you and your decision to the public...bad team lead I
> would say).

Oh, please. Spare me the "if you don't agree with me, you must be
brainwashed or at the very least lying about your opinion" nonsense.

-- 
Soren Hansen               | 
Virtualisation specialist  | Ubuntu Server Team
Canonical Ltd.             | http://www.ubuntu.com/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 315 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/motu-council/attachments/20080903/a93c87f4/attachment.pgp