Re: Bug#150551: ITP: wmcoincoin -- Stupid dockapp for browsing DaCode sites news and board
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@bluecherry.net> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 01:15:16AM +0200, Aaron Isotton wrote:
> > > I care. I suspect everyone who has to download the Packages.gz for sid on
> > > a slow link probably has a vested interest in removing the stupid and all
> > > but totally unused crap people throw in the archive, not adding more to
> > > it.
> >
> > I appreciate the variety. I'd be much more interested in a better
> > compression algorithm (bz2, for example) than in a censored content.
>
> It's not about censorship (why the hell do people always insist on making
> any objection to a package an argument about censorship anyway?)
It *is* about censorship. What you are saying is "remove the packages
which *I* don't think have a 'real use', or which *I* don't think have
enough users". In my eyes, that's censorship and nothing else.
BTW, how are you going to remove the "useless" packages? Do you
really think that anybody saying "I am the boss here, and I decide
what goes into Debian and what doesn't. Your package is useless.
Your work sucks. Fuck off." will improve the general quality of
Debian and the collaboration between the developers?
> bzip2 was packaged because someone thought it would be a useful thing to
> have in Debian. And it is, lots of people use it. We're not trying to
> keep useful things out of the distribution. However, I'm not convinced
> this thing is actually useful for any real purpose.
As Anthony pointed out, I was saying something completely
different. Using Packages.bz2 instead of Packages.gz would save 23%,
which is probably more than you'd ever obtain by eliminating so-called
useless packages.
>
>
> > > We have some really silly things in the archive, and that's fine as long
> > > as they actually have a real use. But I don't go packaging every little
> > > applet and script I write, because most of it is useful to six people,
> > > some of it closer to about a dozen.
> >
> > Please define "real use".
>
> Use your brain! That's what you've got it for. I'm asking for people to
> apply a little common sense. I realize this is a lot to ask from people,
> especially in this project, but it's the only way to prevent more and more
> useless crap from filling the archives, making Debian CDs cost more, and
> slowing down the release process while people try to fix silly bugs in
> packages that nobody uses, rather than worrying about the not so silly
> bugs in packages people do use.
Debian is made by volunteers. They fix what they want, when they want
and only if they want. You cannot force anybody to accept your
priorities as his own.
> > > When packaging a thing, a developer should be asking what this package
> > > will add to Debian and who will benefit. If the answers are "not much"
> > > and "nobody really", do we really need to further bloat the Packages list,
> > > the archive space, the mirrors' disk requirements, etc, with it? I say
> > > probably not.
> >
> > "Only do what's popular" has lead to Windows. I prefer Debian the way
> > it is.
>
> Again, you're dodging the issue.
Not at all. What you are saying is to package only what is popular
and what has "real use". (Not defining what "popular" and "real use"
means, of course.) Doing only what's popular and used/liked by most
has lead to Windows XP. I, and many others, prefer a bloated
Packages.gz because if we want some applications only few others are
using, we must accept that other people will want some other
applications only few are using. Or, in other words: if I want to
have that program with "no real use" to you in Debian, I have to
accept another package with "no real use" to me.
> If the software is only useful to a small handful of people, then those
> people should have the software. If it's useful outside that small group,
> it probably fits well in Debian. However, it's not our job to serve as
> the central repository for every single coder's joke program, CS homework
> assignment, porn collection, or anything else that someone, somewhere
> wants - even if they are the only person in the world who does.
What is a "small handful"? 5? 10? 50? How do you know how many people
will actually use a program? If it takes an hour to package a
program, and 10 people install it, are these 10 saved hours worth less
than a tenth of a second of download time of Packages.gz?
> If you cannot apply common sense to the question "should we have this
> package?", then I can't help you.
Define "common sense". What *you* think, maybe?
--
Aaron Isotton
http://www.isotton.com/
My GPG Public Key: http://www.isotton.com/gpg-public-key
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: