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

Re: Debian's problems, Debian's future

#include <hallo.h>
Jeroen Dekkers wrote on Wed Mar 27, 2002 um 04:51:28PM:

> We already know this, it has come up on the mailinglist twenty times
> with big threads. This won't be done before woody, I think it's better

Oh no, I did never expect this to be done before woody.

> to wait for the woody release. After the woody release we can look at
> the problems and think about the solutions.

Yes. We need a clear roadmap.

> > Thirth level: Rest of data, acompanying the second level.
> And this *fixes nothing*. When Debian grows and we a 3 times as much
> packages, the Packages filesize is as big as it is now. I think my
> solutions, providing packages files for each source package, is

I cannot follow, provide links. I must guess, and I don't think that
making multiple Packages files would improve the speed or RAM usage.

> > and increasing speed. <disclaimer>Yes, I propose to change important
> > things. Yes, this is best done with a newer package format. No, I do not
> > want to port RPM.</disclaimer>
> First of all I don't see what's wrong with our package format. Second
> a change which isn't backwards compatible will never accepted I think.

Depends... it could be done keeping the current format.

> > "fine-configured". Only essential things are configured to get the
> > package into the "configured" state. For all fine configuration, the
> > user can invoke a frontend (GUI/TUI with list selection, or CLI like
> > dpkg-reconfigure) and manage the rest.
> Isn't that exactly what "critical" is?

No. They are lots of things that need special knowledge for
configuration. You have to read docs to undestand them. If you do not
want to see the less important configuration things at installation
time, you can change the severity level of debconf, but I cannot see a
clear way to handle with this as package maintainer.

Debconf is used for too much things, not for the essential configuration
things only. All extra stuff must be splitted from essential config.

> Maybe because GPM is just an old unmaintained piece of crap? (Sorry
> for my rude language, but I think it's the truth.)

It is buggy, but it is the only way to get mouse support on console.

> For X, I think Branden is doing a fine job and I can really see
> improvenment in the way configuration is done. If you know a better
> way to do it, did you told it him and/or provide a patch?

I told already, and will try to provide a patch soon.

A mathematician is a machine for converting coffee into theorems.

Attachment: pgpFkYUch8gPW.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: