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

Re: Napster clients, so much diversity.

Michael Stone wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 12:23:22AM +0000, bug1 wrote:
> > Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> > > i took that statement to be sarcastic. with the size of the distribution
> > > growing so fast, shouldn't we have some restrictions on level of
> > > completeness?
> >
> > If we start limiting the size, who is going to judge wether a package is
> > "worthy" of inclusion ?  Personally i hate EMACS cause i havent had time
> > to understand it, so to me EMACS is pointless and otherwise useless, but
> > i recognise its not my position to judge EMACS usefullness in other
> > peoples eyes.
> >
> > IMO the only restriction on what deems an acceptable package should be
> > technical and legal.
> Jacob was talking about a technical restriction: if most of a program's
> features are unimplemented or unreliably implemented, it is technically
> incomplete. We're feeling around the edges of some rational metrics for
> buggy/useless packages, and it would be nice to have some guidelines on
> this point.  But we can't even have a discussion about what might be
> useful in determining removal candidates without someone throwing in a
> hand-waving argument that the distribution's size is irrelevent and that
> any trivial package that someone throws together in an evening is
> sacrosanct. (I snipped the page you spent expanding on that basic
> theme.) The only person who brought up removing a package because of
> personal dislike was you! That kind of argument only serves to distract
> people from the real issue: how do we deal with junk packages? We know
> that personal dislike is an invalid justification; more useful would be
> to discuss some valid criteria.

Maybe i bought up the argument at the wrong time, i was really only
trying to make an argument against excluding it due to the fact that it
tried to do what other packages do. If its excluded due to bugs then
thats fine by me. 

> Here's a start: Let's say someone installs a package and finds that it's
> mostly a menu bar and an about box. Most of the menu items do nothing,
> and the few that do something lead to immediate crashes. He brings it up
> on debian-devel and a couple of people confirm that the package does
> nothing. No one chimes in that the package is useful. Is it too much to
> ask that the developer justify its inclusion in debian?
> --
> Mike Stone

It wouldnt be too much to *ask* the developer to justify its inclusion,
but if you *demand* the maintainer justify its inclusing threatening the
package be removed unless adequate justification is given, then there
has to be some process in place to judge wether the justifications given
are valid.

How do you fairly judge the importance of a package ?

How many opinions do you consider...

Why would a packager go to the trouble of packaing something that really
is useless.

Maybe a sub distribution of debian that only has packages that are
approved by some sort of "panel" would meet the needs of some people.

Sorry, i should have toned down my previous email a bit.

Glenn McGrath

Reply to: