[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Metapackages in "Section: metapackages" or not (Was: visibility of Debian Pure Blends)

Quoting Andreas Tille (2014-10-27 07:19:27)
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:06:50PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> Quoting Andreas Tille (2014-10-26 17:17:37)
>>> It is not mandatory by blends-dev.  [implementation details skipped] 
>>> For me it becomes more and more evident that we need to discuss more 
>>> on this list about needs of different Blends and how to correctly 
>>> implement this.
>> Well, one reason for lack of discussion in the past is that (as far 
>> as I am aware) only one tool for creating blends have existed: 
>> blends-dev.
> I see it differently.  I would have loved to discuss about features of 
> blends-dev but the responses in the past tended to be zero.  Not even 
> bug reports about features were filed.  So I try to "overhear" what 
> might be needed and #720199 was the actual motivation to implement the 
> feature to add "Section: metapackages".

I am not surprised that you are blind to the reason I bring up.

Or do you mean to say that you disagree that being a reason at all?  
Feels odd to me if you argue that my reason for staying silent is not a 
reason.  Perhaps you mean it is a reason you disapprove of?

>> Assuming you mean discussion (also) across tools, I look forward to 
>> some friendly competition, now that boxer is finally in a reasonably 
>> usable state (after 2 failed attempts, first one dating back to 
>> February 2011).
> I admit I consider it a bit strange to anounce it that way.  In 
> principle I'm not against competition but I think a hand full of 
> people should be able to find a common solution.  Not to say that we 
> had a GSoC last year to rewrite blends-dev and all people reading here 
> should have noticed the discussion and could have suggested their 
> wanted features.
> I'm not against "friendly competition" - but staying silent when the 
> chance for cooperation is given comes quite unexpected to me.

You made a tool that works for you - and for others too.  That's great.

Would be wonderful with a single tool that fits all our varying needs, 
but currently I don't feel at home with your tool, and don't feel it is 
small adjustments but instead that I would need radical changes for the 
tool to serve what I wanted from it.  I don't want to try tear apart 
your tool when it works for existing users of it, and I don't even know 
clearly what I want instead.

I have stayed silent because I had nothing constructive to contribute.

That might change now.  Time will tell.

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature

Reply to: