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

Re: deb-make



In article <Pine.LNX.3.95q.970219084417.11776F-100000@waterf.org>
you write:
>On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>> How did we manage to get into the situation where an arguably
>> badly-designed piece of software became so quickly and with so
>> little discussion wired into the guts of Debian's package
>> management so deeply that we can't change it ?
>
> Could you please be specific in what ways "debmake" is badly
> designed?

Could you be specific as to the ways in which debmake was designed at
all ? What I have seen of the code, the implementation, and the
discussion on this list suggest strongly to me that it began life as a
quick-and-easy aid to your (Christoph's) personal package development,
and that it has had bits of extra functionality bolted on from there
on in. There's nothing wrong with that; a tool for one's own personal
use doesn't require much design. A tool for the use of hundreds of
developers does, and I'm afraid I don't see in debmake the degree of
careful thought that went into dpkg, dpkg-source et al.

>> I think its design and programming interface are poor, and can only
>> be fixed incompatibly.  I think its implementation is poor, and
>> that this is best fixed by having it rewritten by someone else.

(I agree.)

> Huh? The vote of no confidence? One thing I really enjoy about how
> leaders in the Debian Project appreciate the work done by others.

There is no point in expressing appreciation of work one does not
consider good work.

Owen
-- 
		     Owen `Stribethssonsson' Dunn
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~owend/      <owen@greenend.org.uk>
		  `Who will catch me when you fall?'


--
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: