Why is lastfm a required dependency?

[Modestas Vainius]

Hello,

On 2009 m. June 23 d., Tuesday 03:17:28 Orville Bennett wrote:

> Some. Not all or even most. And first and foremost, that probably should
> be solved by dialog with packagers/distros before more drastic measures
> are taken.
>
> > especially for those who use distros which have a "COMPILE->SHIPIT"
> > mentality. Just stating that you're not one of these packagers (which
> > we appreciate!) doesn't make them go away. :)

But my patience is limited.

> Still weak reasoning. Those distros have a choice, as well as those
> users. If they really want to make optional dependencies optional, is it
> worth pissing off the rest of your packagers to fix this?
> Seems a bit drastic to me.

Indeed. What pisses me off is such attitude. I'm against applying exaggerated 
technical messures when you have social problems with a couple (or is it 
majority? I'm wondering as I have never seen a mail about this) of distros. I 
don't know your past experience, but I think you could start discussing this 
"COMPILE->SHIPIT" or whatever you do not like via appropriate channels and if 
it does not help, start publicizing distro sh*tlist or something. Deal with 
social issues socially, not technically.

-- 
Modestas Vainius <modestas at vainius.eu>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/amarok/attachments/20090623/436f20d0/attachment.sig>