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

Re: Package splitting and upgrades



It certainly does sound interesting, and I haven't tried it yet, but I
think perhaps the reason that there is little interest is that it
doesn't seems to be in debian at this time, and a lot of people can't
be bothered to install something that's not apt-getable (yes its
laziness :). If you need help packaging it, or a sponsor I certainly
volunteer, since it seems more than worthwhile.

* Joe Wreschnig (piman@sacredchao.net) wrote:
> > Maybe aptitude is better.  Maybe someone has to write a better command-line
> > tool to do a superset of apt-get's current capabilities. But that won't be
> > me, I don't have the time, and I suspect I don't have the skills (right now) 
> > either :(
> 
> This is exactly why I wrote Feta[1]. Unfortunately, so far, help from
> actual Debian Developers has been far between and usually unresponsive
> (I won't name names, but if you're reading this, you told me "up to a
> week" before it appears on mirrors, after I sent you a release to
> package on November 18th).
> 
> Feta has support for suggests and recommends (currently in the plugins
> tarball; the plugins are included with the program in the CVS version),
> support for the "console-like readline functionality" mentioned in a
> reply to this post), and things like a 'hold' command, as well as a way
> to teach users how to use the underlying APT infrastructure directly;
> unlike Aptitude or Deity, Feta only uses existing dpkg/apt programs to
> do its work (20% the complexity for 80% of the functionality ;).
> 
> If I sound slightly bitter, yes I am. This is probably caused by the
> fact that I see people reimplementing parts of Feta in an inferior
> manner[3], because I tried to avoid tooting my own horn and letting the
> word spread by itself after an initial announcement[2]. Instead, I got
> let down by Debian developers not returning contact, and not showing
> interest in a tool that:
> 
>  - Solves a (many) problem(s) that come up frequently on Debian
> discussion boards and mailing lists (e.g. this one, right now).
>  - Allows users to extend it to perform any other packaging tricks they
> want in a simple manner (just by using a shell script, if they want).
>  - Does so using existing Debian tools, but providing a simpler, more
> consistent, and more powerful interface.
>  - Teaches users directly, without a "RTFM" (although, CVS Feta[4] has
> RTFFetaM, RTFM, and the teaching mode. Honestly, the only major thing
> holding up a 1.3.0 release is the lack of documentation; please read the
> Savannah page[5] to see how you can help.)
>  - Has existed in a mostly stable (and always useful) state since July,
> and had a public announcement (through debian-devel and DWN) at that
> time.
> 
> So, yes. Someone does have to write such a command line tool. Someone
> has done so. Now the question is, why isn't Debian (the organization)
> interested in it?
> 
> References:
> 1. http://www.sacredchao.net/software/feta/index.shtml
> 
> 2. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200107/msg01614.html
> 
> 3. http://www.debianplanet.org/article.php?sid=608 but I'm sure there
> are others as well. This is no slam to the author (who sent me a nice
> Feta patch just 3 days later :), but rather a specific observation of
> the general problem that third party Debian packaging tools are not
> usually packaged or made easily available for Debian (the exception I
> can think of, Wajig, is similar to Feta, but is more a swiss army knife
> of Debian stuff, where Feta is a swiss army chainsaw of Debian
> packaging).
> 
> 4. http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/feta/
> 
> 5. http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/feta/



-- 
Eric Dorland <dorland@lords.com>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: hooty@jabber.com
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C  2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ 
O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ 
G e h! r- y+ 
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Attachment: pgpH_IHx2IDj1.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: