Re: Doom of Debian Re: Debian Weekly News - February 18th, 2003
On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 03:58:01PM +0100, Davide Inglima wrote:
[snip]
> I can see something like 11 architectures supported by the current
> distribution.
> If I open aptitude or dselect or browse the list of packages, I can see
> gazillions of k3wl packages which are old and many times don't work well,
> or come without documentation, for gazillions of architectures
Have you filed bugs against them?
[snip]
> I was only trying to state that:
>
> 1) Debian is already a huge project, maybe really bigger than the needed,
> with
> many packages with pending bugs from 200+ days, and many other packages
> that don't fit the (complex) debian policy
Then do something about it. File bugs against non-conforming packages.
Help track down old bugs and fix them. Ping the maintainer and remind him
of old bugs that haven't been fixed yet.
Over the past few months, I've been spending time on and off to hit on old
bugs (see http://master.debian.org/~ajt/oldbugs.html), and help ping old
bugs in base packages like glibc, grep, sed, etc.. You're most welcome to
join my efforts.
[snip]
> 3) either [1] Debian has the guts to cut the number of packages that it
> ships,
If a package works and conforms to policy, there's no reason to cut it.
But if you think some packages are broken and non-conforming, then please
file bugs against them. The ftpmaster does remove broken packages that
don't work, y'know.
> or the Debian mantainers become part of the upstream package devteam for
> any single package they mantain, or, simply put, the distribution will be
> doomed.
[snip]
There's no need to be part of the upstream devteam if the relationship
between maintainer and upstream is good. This obviously wasn't the case in
the micq debacle, which was the original cause of your complaint. I'm
still not sure what you mean by "doomed". Care to elaborate?
T
--
It's amazing how careful choice of punctuation can leave you hanging:
Reply to: