Re: Orphaning Unbuildable Packages (fpm)
On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 11:11:42PM +0200, tomas pospisek wrote:
> > Then adopt it, or offer arguments against its removal, or continue using
> > the version from stable, which is equivalent to having an unmaintained
> > package anyway. But when one of our developers tells us "this software
> > that I packaged is no longer useful", there is no reason we should do
> > anything by default other than taking the maintainer's word for it.
>
> Please cite the exact phrase where Brian said fpm is no longer useful.
Just to clarify, fpm is still useful, and in fact I use it on my woody
systems. Not sure yet what I will do post-woody...
FPM is badly written[1] and buggy, and I don't have time to become
the upstream author as well as the Debian maintainer in order to bring
it up to the high standards required by Debian.
Nor could I get it to build on unstable; it is based on glade; last time
I tried to build a simple C++ project in glade, I encountered lots of
different problems. I filled a number of bug reports at the time; to the
best of my knowledge, most/all of these are still open...
Note:
[1] When I first started maintaining fpm, I thought the code quality
was meant to be better then gpm; but now I realize that the maximum
password length is hardcoded to be 24, and no indication is given if
this limit is exceeded. Others may disagree, but that is in my criteria
for "badly written code". If I studied the code, I imagine I would find
other problems.
--
Brian May <bam@debian.org>
Reply to: