Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Packaging for Debian/Ubuntu
Re: Packaging for Debian/Ubuntu
From: Dominik Riebeling <dominik.riebeling_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 23:17:24 +0200
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Thomas
> Dominik Riebeling schrieb:
>> On 7/9/09, Thomas Martitz <thomas.martitz_at_student.htw-berlin.de> wrote:
>>> The main blocker is the fact that rbutil is still a 1-binary app,
>>> statically linking Qt stuff. IIRC that's a no-go for packaging.
>> This is completely nonsense. Please don't state such things if you
>> don't know about it.
> Calm down. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I was meaning that debian/ubuntu
> package people don't like static binaries.
Well, you didn't write "IIRC" or the lengthy version "if I remember
correctly" or something like that, so your statement tells that the
blocker *is* static linking of Qt. This is completely nonsense, and I
won't "calm down" here: you're stating wrong facts. If you aren't sure
about what you are stating make sure to *make clear* that you aren't
100% sure about it. Everything else *will* cause confusion, and as we
already could see it *did* cause confusion. Nothing that's helpful or
If you now tell that you weren't clear (may I laugh about that?) I
could even get upset and tell you are stating wrong facts on purpose.
But I won't do that, I have no proof for this nor any reason to think
that could be the case. Still, stating wrong things and later telling
your statements were unclear which were written in a form that implies
them being 100% correct and now playing it down is at least something
I consider *at least* really bad style. If you don't know about it why
don't you just let the people actually working on the topic answer the
Received on 2009-07-10