Re: Gratuitous promotion of random binaries to standard
>>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <email@example.com> writes:
Dale> I am a great fan of MC and my only desires are that it be in the
Dale> main distribution so dselect can install it, and that its
Dale> "debian" features be maintained.
Is that not the case? Is it not in main? does dselect refuse
to install it? Is anyone removing the Debian features?
Why this drive to move packages from optional (which the vast
majority of debian packages are) to standard? what difference
does it make really?
It is not as if not being standard reduces visibility. Sendmail
is extra, for gods sake. X is optional. why is mc more standard than
X or sendmail? (If i was a conspiracy theorist, i would see all kinds
of hdden agendas here).
Dale> My concern is not so much with MC being rejected as a "standard"
Dale> package, but more with the entrenched conservatism that says,
Dale> only those packages that have historically been considered "part
Dale> of a standard Unix system" are ever to be considered as
Dale> "standard" Debian packages. This strict interpretation is the
Dale> definition of a "dead language", an unchanging static object
Dale> that can never be adapted to a new environment and will
Dale> therefore become extinct.
Look at it this way. We have 17 important packages, 58
standard ones, and these, by themselves, constitute a core of what
most people agree is a ``UNIX'' system.
We also have 1368 optional packages, and 202 extra ones. In
the optional packages are some that a lot of people like. We import
*all* packages indiscriminately into the standard category, it shall
loose all meaning. So we have to have some criterion for moving a
package from optional (where most packages belong) to standard.
I think the only reason for a package to be in standard is if
it were not in standard, people should say what kinda unix is this?
it does not even have <blah>. Unfortuantely, mc does not qualify.
Dale> I have always taken the "liberal" POV and have expected Debian
Dale> to be a living, breathing, adapting system and have no
Dale> objections to redefining the set of standard packages on a
Dale> continuing basis.
But not indiscriminately. Come up with a better candidate, and
you may well get a different response.
Dale> One final argument in favor of considering MC to be a standard
Dale> package. The GNU folks have adopted this package and carry it on
Dale> all their mirrors. We are "Debian GNU/Linux", not "Debian, the
Dale> standard since ancient times".
Oh, come on, dwarf. You wanna tell me that all packages on
ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu should be standard packages? Yuo know what all is
in there? gnushogi? xboard?
Dale> Those of you who are opposed to changing standard please
Dale> reconsider your position by taking a look at the list of
Dale> standard packages with the eye toward what tools are missing
Dale> that could be provided to make a more "complete" set of
Dale> "standard" tools. (As you know, I think MC is a prime candidate)
Dale> If you come to the conclusion that I am still wrong, please let
Dale> us hear your reasons. Paul is correct. "No!" in reply to "Is
Dale> this a good idea?" is a vote with no authority. Please, give
Dale> logical explanation. This tends to starve the flames, while
Dale> providing information to the rest of us.
I would not consider it strange if a unix system does not
contain mc. And the drafts of unix 98 do not, in any way, shape, or
form, mention mc. I have not, to my knowledge, worked on any machine
that had mc installed. I do not think it is a standard package.
"jackpot: you may have an unnecessary change record" message from
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .