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

Re: Bug#167921: ITP: httrack -- offline browser : copy websites toyour computer



On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 02:39:32PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

>  Steve> If "we've already got one of those" isn't enough reason to
>  Steve> object to packaging a piece of software, pray, what is?

> 	I certainly do not think that is a good enough reason,
>  no. Please interject your own emacs vs vi flame here. (Like, we
>  already had an editor in ed).

To elaborate: I'm not saying that "we've already got one of those" is
reason enough to *prevent* a new package from being included, only that
it's a reason to raise an objection *which the maintainer can overrule*.
It is a means of checking that the maintainer is aware of the options
available, and is making an informed decision to package the software --
nothing more.

>  Steve> The question "why do we need another one?" should always be
>  Steve> asked, and unless there are problems with the functionality
>  Steve> provided by the existing package, "I don't want to use that
>  Steve> one" is a piss-poor excuse for expanding the archive.

> 	I strongly disagree. It is the best reason for expanding the
>  archive: at least oneperson has had an itch to scratch despite the
>  existence of a perfectly working alternative (for most people windows
>  works well enough, for the rest there are the bsd's, who the hell
>  needs Linux? And who the hell needs anything more than Red Hat and
>  Suse?).

"I don't want to use that one" IS a piss-poor excuse, because it's
totally unreasoning.  I don't think we're raising the bar too high if we
require maintainers to have some concrete reason for adding a new
package -- even personal, subjective reasons are ok.

> 	Alternatives, parrallel paths for exploring solutions, lead to
>  innovation. Artificially limiting on the basis of seniority is the
>  piss poor mechanism.

As noted on IRC, I think this needs to work both ways: not only should
we ask "what's wrong with the one we've got?", we should also ask "if
the one we've got has problem X, why shouldn't we get rid of it in favor
of this new package?"

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpsurAnd6Q7L.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: