Re: RFC: implementation of package pools
Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> We've already uncovered such bugs in da-katie. And in the testing scripts.
> And no doubt in dinstall as it already exists. And in most programs on the
> planet. Sure, bugs *shouldn't* happen, people *shouldn't* make mistakes,
> but they do.
>
so get these working and people can detect bugs earlier :)
> > ext2 isn't a good filesystem. and linux isn't a good kernel. the fact
> > that we're running them doesn't entail that their philosophy is correct.
> > we're running them because they're the best [in some aspect or another]
> > in the free world.
>
> It's not really that useful to talk about things as being "good" or
> "bad" when even the "best" isn't "good".
you're confusing the scope of the best :) i meant "best in the free world
in some aspect". this means that there may be better kernels/filesystems
in the non-free world. :)
> The disagreement is about whether it's worth retaining the possibility
> of doing *without* that automation in future. Whether the archive should
> be physically maintainable by hand, even if it's grown too large for that
> to be feasible as a whole.
I think it's already too large to modify manually. I'd prefer that
a software archive avoids human intervention as much as possible.
I understand your point, but still disagree :) I mean, the code is already
bent that way, so just keep it like that. Maybe someone else later
comes up with an implementation that's designed differently :)
Keep hacking,
PS: I'd read that dwn issue I guess.
--
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail: erayo@cs.bilkent.edu.tr
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo
Reply to: