Re: Possible framework for `dpkg-dev/debmake replacement'
>>"David" == David Engel <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
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:email@example.com>
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