On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 13:33, Joey Hess wrote: > Greg Folkert wrote: > > Great basic rule of thumb... first off if you DO NOT know what BLACS or > > LAM is... you don't need it. I apply this rule everywhere. And obviously > > you should as well. If you knew what BLACS or LAM then you would > > definitely know >WHAT< it is and >WHY< you would need it. > > I see. And what if I admin a cluster, and a user puts in a request that > I install a parallelizable linear algebra kit with features x, y, and z? > BLACS seems to support PVM and MPI, which I know about, but its > description doesn't provide any other useful information. ScaLAPACK's > description is ominously similar in its opacity. meschach only has > feature y. lapack's description mentions features y and z, but it > doesn't seem to be parallizable. > > Which do I pick, and have I made the right decision? At the moment, the > right decision might rest on me noticing that ScaLAPACK is based on > lapack. But then, for all I know, BLACS could be far superior to them > both, and include features x, y, and z. I'm probably stuck installing > them all, and reading their docs to look for feature x, something > package descriptions are intended to avoid. Very plausible. The trick is to get the requester to use the skill/knowledge they posses to help traverse the decision tree. I know... they never help or are hard to get a hold of... very brutal when working with them... etc... etc... Often they are the ones with the decision capacity. Point them in the proper direction and ask them to pick between the choices you have. I do this most of the time, when I don't, often have to retrace my steps and change the setup. > > We(you and Ben) are forgetting the prime reason Debian exists. If you > > don't know that you obviously shouldn't be on the Devel list. Maybe > > you should just go over to Debian User and actually interface with > > people having problems that need to be solved. Rather than piss and > > moan about descriptions that are obvious, when you do need them you > > know they apply. > > I think my scenario is completly plausable. And yes, I do read debian-user. "We" meant Manoj Srivastava and Ben Foley. I have been reading DD on lists.d.o the web-server for quite sometime and I must have missed your comments. Completely plausible yes, but see previous comment The comments about Debian User were not meant for you Jo. I have seen your comments on DU therefore I apologize if the comments were taken wrongly. I just think that a significant portion of Debain Developers *ARE* ignoring the end-user (end-luser a number say) if they can't immerse themselves in FIXING the stuff the write by helping out periodically, I'd be hard pressed to guess they WANT to make the package a success... Blue-sky attitude is a good thing, but you need some mud and dirt in there to make things grow. Descriptions IMHO, are a thing that needs to be worked on as a matter of course, during the packaging. If the Maintainer does have first hand contact with his/her users... then maybe the feedback will cause them to make better use of the few minutes they have for a description. I also make a case that MOST end-users could really care less if a stinking description is proper or not... if it dunnah worky... off they go looking for something else. Critical amount of time is 30-60 seconds after install (or apt-get install), after the initial first-time config, if it doesn't work, they go on. I guess, I have a different perspective being on the "make things work" side for a few too many years of the support train to really believe Descriptions will change the world. If short and long descriptions are the same, maybe a Bug-Report SHOULD be made and the reporter include a good description themselves. On the other hand, a recent volley about a C-R mail filters, shows that there are indeed some people here with some near sightedness as it pertains to package management and actions being taken. Thanks for all your work Jo, Colin, Manoj, <insert the plethora of Debian Developers>, with out it Debian would NOT be anywhere near to this kind of discussion *ABOUT* descriptions. Work, thus far not taking a bunch of time or bandwidth about descriptions has been well spent. -- greg, greg@gregfolkert.net REMEMBER ED CURRY! http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry EAT SPASMOTIC RICE! It will beguile you and improve your complexion.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part