Re: Generally accepted cut-off limit for -doc packages
On Wed, 7 May 2003, James Troup wrote:
> I don't know where people get the idea that I was dictating anything;
Because I think you would have the right - well not to dictate - but to
propose those kinds of limits which just should ironed out in an easily
accessable document. It would make perfectly sense and you are one of
the most competent person to suggest a reasonable limit.
> the .reason file (which is 0644 on auric and was already quoted in
> this thread) said: "Please consider merging the loki-doc package back
> into loki?" Notice how it's a question?
I'm sorry, I'm no native speaker but in my understanding of Englich language
the word order implies a request not a question, while the "Please" makes
it quite soft.
> I also didn't just pull the 500k limit at random out of my evil cabal
> hat, it's what I honestly remember as being consensus from a
> discussion many years ago
Your second mail (in private - thus I did not quoted it in public) was the
reason why I was asking here because you ased me to look for a thing I was
not able to find. This is the usual case when I'm seeking for help on
debian-devel. I did not want to bring the cabal thing up but to clarify
a thing which should be clarified. Moreover my investigation into small
document packages (see script in my last mail) shows that in the end some
stupid things where found and things could be made better in the future.
> My reply to Andreas was "tense" because if it hadn't been for the fact
> that he replied to a role address, I wouldn't have seen his mail as
> he's currently in my twitfile.
While I have no problems to be in somebodies twitfile I regard it as
not very handy if ftpmaster has Debian developers in his twitfile.
> So yes, I do tend to REJECT what are IMO less-than-ideal package
> splits if only to encourage the maintainer to think about the pro's
> and con's of package splitting. I try to carefully phrase them (and
> differentiate them from e.g. "you have no license in the copyright
> file, fix it, you tramp." type REJECTs) to indicate they're not a "no,
> not ever" REJECT but a "fix this please and/or explain what I'm
> missing" REJECT. I guess maybe I'll have to add some sort of template
> footer to distinguish between the two, but like the MOTD on auric it's
> depressing that it's necessary :(
Again: It was not the problem of that you REJECTED the upload but that
you were refering to a fact I do not understand. So I was asking for
clarification. Please excuse my stupidity / problems with English
language if my wording was not clear enough when I explained several times
that I was just asking for the documentation and that I have not problems
with the fact of rejection if I could only find where other developers
and I could find a reference to enhance their package skills.
Kind regards
Andreas.
Reply to: