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

Re: Possible framework for `dpkg-dev/debmake replacement'

>>"David" == David Engel <david@sw.ods.com> writes:

David> There, I edited the 'Subject:' line.  Now everything I've
David> talked about it in scope, right?  :-)


David> The reason I asked "By who's decision?" is because you are
David> sounding like you have appointed yourself the final arbiter of
David> what is in scope and what the requirements will be.  If Bruce
David> or the BOD chartered you to form a team to design a debmake
David> (and only a debmake) replacement, then I apologize for
David> questioning your position.  I've been quite inundated with
David> email lately and it's possible I missed the message chartering
David> the effort you are trying to lead.  If I didn't miss any such
David> email, then I don't think we've heard from enough developers
David> yet to claim any consensus on what is and isn't in scope.

	I have not been enchartered by anyone (sounds like cruise
 lines), and by no means am I a *final arbiter* of anything

	I was just interpreting the subject, and trying to keep the
 focus on debmake, which is (a) what I am interested in discussing,
 and (b) what the thread had been about. (I'd probably do this for any
 thread, but I have a special interest in this topic).

 [This sounds way more arrogant than it did in my head, honest]

	I am just an interested developer, concerned about debmake,
 which, IMHO, despite being a wonderful package, could do with a few

	Christoph does not have a major amount of time right now, and
 I wrangled reluctant blessings from Bruce and him (which is *not* a
 charter) to incorporate stuff if I actually manage to come up with an
 improvement ;-).

	I'm just trying to get people involved in helping me design
 what is percieved to be needed.  Something like this effort needs at
 least a compiler, a point man, and I invite anyone who feels commited
 to improving debmake to step forward, and I'll happily stand down. 

	i'd prefer an open design and development process that works
 on the basis of some kind of consensus, and by no means has it room
 for a single *final arbiter* (not at this stage, anyway, and usually
 the final arbiter is Bruce -- tough job, but somebody's gotta do it).
 It does need someone to keep the process moving, and to limit the
 scope of the effort so we don't bite off more than we could chew, and
 we don't tread on the toes of the people Bruce and Ian assign to dpkg
 and friends, which is a higher priority item. Debmake has been
 relegated to a lower priority, but there is no reason these could not
 be developed in parallel.

	There will be people, soon, in charge of dpkg, who will ask
 for input, as well as *users* who will contribute to that effort.
 I'm trying to give momentum to something smaller, and I don't want
 this effort to get drowned in talk about dpkg.

	I hope this clarifies things, and if anyone wants this task,
 please come forward and I'll quite happily step down.

 If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then
 the first woodpecker that came along would destroy
 civilization. Gerald Weinberg (sysop's note: bull)
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: