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

Re: debmake: a compromise?

>>"Richard" == Richard G Roberto <richr@Bear.COM> writes:

Richard> I'm reluctant to make such objections as I'm not really
Richard> qualified to.  In the public domain, the "law of the land" is
Richard> usually "put up or shut up".  People don't usually go throuth
Richard> the process of clearly defining a design spec and
Richard> implementation plan until they have at least 5000 lines of
Richard> code -)

	As a law of the land, this seems more appropriate for a John
 Wayne movie ;-) I don't think this is a valid premise at all, not for
 this forum.  A package automation package needs the input of the
 people who are likely to use it most often. After all, art critica
 don't need to be great painters, do they?

	I have attempted to start dialog about a requirements document
 for features we would like to see in such a package; I'd like to get
 this done before we talk about implementation issues or choosing
 candidates; and I hope that you participate in that effort.


 "If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for
 reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." Albert Einstein
Manoj Srivastava               <url:mailto:srivasta@acm.org>
Mobile, Alabama USA            <url:http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com

Reply to: