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:firstname.lastname@example.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