Comment 10 for bug 567819

> Your attitude is hardly going to make
> contributors feel compelled to help resolve this.

 "rushing ahead" and screwing with ubuntu users, by blatantly removing complex package dependencies that those users are completely incapable of compiling for themselves, isn't exactly "polite", is it? why should _i_ have to be the one that's "polite" to people who significantly inconvenience ubuntu users?

 because of that "rudeness" by the ubuntu developers who made these carte blanche decisions, right now, every single conversation on the pyjamas mailing list where the word "ubuntu" is mentioned, i *immediately* tell them to go install ANYTHING but ubuntu, and come back when they have done so.

 _forget_ about me and my "rudeness", ok??

 anyway.

> No, we can't do that. We only support xulrunner 1.9.2 in Lucid (and we
> only want to support a single version in the future), otherwise we would
> have done that already.

 ok, so simple stark translation of this statement: you're going to rush ahead, firefox is the absolute priority, and fuck anyone or anything else using xulrunner and python-xpcom, right?

 wait - that's "impolite", is it?

 well, you should have said "our current plan is to only have one version of xulrunner. if you can think of a way to make it easy for us to add two, please do say so"

 or - _anything_ but "no we can't do that".

 that just slams the door in peoples' faces, and that's "rude", isn't it?

 so... tell me.... why should _i_ have to be the one that's "polite" when you're slamming the door in peoples' faces with statements that look eeevver so cleverly "polite" at face value, neh?

 i've seen _enough_ of this in free software - people being sooo cleverr with words, yet actually being total self-serving and goalpost-moving.

 ... you didn't mean to do that, though, chris, did you? it's an innocent enough statement "no we can't do that", but please _think_ about what it means when you say it, ok??

 l.