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

Re: debmake contains namespace pollution and bugs procedure

In article <m0xKOlX-0004ntC@chiark.greenend.org.uk> you wrote:
: Christoph Lameter and I have been having a tussle over bug #7490 (also
: #5682 reported by Owen Dunn).

Yes. And its a long one. You already reopened those bug reports 9 month or
so ago after I closed them.

: In it I complained about debmake's namespace pollution.  Christoph
: renamed 'done' and 'ok', but left
:  uscan uupdate debi debc release todo build debpkg dch and debstdo

There is no todo or debstdo in debmake anymore. The bug report is
outdated and really inaccurate.

: He closed the bug report without further discussion.  When I reopened
: it he closed it again in a message saying:
: > These are not bugs. If you want to have a public discussion post to
: > debian-devel.

A long time ago we already had this discussion.

: 1. A bug report should not be closed unless all the things in the
: report have been addressed.  Christoph initially closed this bug
: without addressing the complaint completely.  I had to go and
: investigate the latest debmake package to determine whether to reopen
: the bug.

A bug report should be closed if the maintainer feels that the issues
have been addressed. I fixed what I felt necessary. Bug reports that
are ancient and inaccurate do not belong into the bug tracking system.

: 2. If there is a disagreement about a bug report the bug should be
: left open while the discussion about it takes place.  Otherwise the
: issue might be forgotten.  If people agree with me on this it should
: be made policy.

The issue is already extremely old. There is no bug AFAIK.

: 3. This namespace pollution _is_ a bug, and the consensus of those
: commenting on it is that this is the case.  All these binaries should
: be renamed to start with a common prefix.  I would object to the use
: of the 'dpkg-' prefix.  I suggest 'debmk-'.

Most of the executables start with deb if package building
related or u if they are tools dealing with upstream sources.

There are "build" and "release" which have been named that way because
of the ease of use for new maintainers and also because a large number
of developers use those frequently.

Those tools have a long history of use now and it would be difficult to
have people type long names like debmake-buildpackage or something like
that. Debmake was designed to be easy to use and an introductory package
for new maintainers. Changing the naming violates the intentions of the
package. Some of the naming might be unfortunate in retrospect but I
still cannot see a problem caused by those names.

Debmake development has stopped more than 6 months ago and I am just
fixing bugs and keeping it up to date. Other packages like debhelper are
on the rise and I do not intend to do any major change to the package.

: I shall reopen this bug while the discussion takes place.
I shall close this bug because it is inaccurate and outdated and no
bug at all.

--- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ ---
Please always CC me when replying to posts on mailing lists.

--- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ ---

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: