Re: search-citeseer_0.1-1_i386.changes REJECTED
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 05:32:11PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org> writes:
>
> > Otavio Salvador <otavio@debian.org> writes:
> >
> >> And no one is obliged to do all like James think. The package follow
> >> the policy and doesn't have any point in policy talking about size
> >> requeriments.
> >
> > Policy is not everything that counts. Just because policy doesnt say
> > something it means it is good to do it.
>
> Of course but I think if the developper did something is because he
> think this is better and this should be respected (if doesn't broke
> the policy)
You've had about 8 people tell you that what you did was a bad idea, along
with some pretty reasoned arguments why. (Make mine no. 9 - for all the
reasons already mentioned).
When public opinion comes out overwhelmingly against you, it's usually time
to think "hmm, I may be wrong there" rather than "everybody else is stupid".
> > "It can work without" is not enough for a split. One reason, but not
> > everything. If we would split everything that "works without the rest
> > in the package" we would end up with thousands of useless small
> > packages. We already have enough packages in the list, we dont need
> > things there we can avoid without problems.
>
> More or less. Doesn't make sense include a depends of Emacs in
> search-citeseer and the -el part depends of this. The better option is
> split in two package each with your depends and needs.
Extending your argument just a bit, then there'd be a Debian package for
every binary, along with a bunch more for the collections of files all those
binaries need to work. It Just Won't Scale.
> The sugestion of James is not right to include emacs like a suggets is
> not good since the package need emacsen to work.
And the only people who will give a crap about the -el working are those who
have emacs. Presumably installed, so they won't notice that it needs emacs
to work.
I truly believe it's time to cut your losses, swallow your pride, and move
on. Unless the lurkers support you in e-mail, of course.
- Matt
Reply to: