Re: free alternative to povray?
Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 04:04:07PM +0100, Rémi Letot wrote:
>> The real problem is that those packages would loose all the other
>> stuff debian provides : policy, BTS,...
>
> You appear not to have read the proposed General Resolution.
Yes I have.
> It does not mandate the cessation of bug tracking services, and it
> certainly doesn't wipe the "lintian" or "linda" packages out of
> existence.
But it has been said on the main thread that modifying debbugs to
handle external repositories is not a simple task. There are technical
modifications, which is not trivial, but also logical modifications
which might prove much harder : how do you define which external
packages are covered by debian's BTS, lintian,... ? Should the BTS
cover anyones's deb on the web? What if two DD package the same
non-free package? These are underlying problems not handled in the
GR. I think the text should be modified to clarify those points.
> Would it surprise you learn that these tools can be run on any .deb?
I know that. What I spoke about was the automatical reports fond in
the *.d.o domain (ie lintian.debian.org,...), reports accessible to
users.
> Would it surprise you learn that package maintainers can choose to abide
> by Debian Policy even if they don't plan to upload a package to the
> Debian incoming directory?
What I know is that DD *must* comply to Policy to upload packages (or
at least a violation of policy mandates a serious bug in the BTS). I
have no such guarantee for externally provided packages.
>> But let's not fork the main thread :-)
>
> You could help prevent this by not asserting falsehoods.
I know my english is not the best out there, and I know I am not
familiar with how I have to write to cover each and every implication
of what I say on -devel, but I don't think what I wrote was so
difficult to understand, especially for someone very active in the
main thread.
Cheers,
--
Rémi
Reply to: