[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: search-citeseer_0.1-1_i386.changes REJECTED

Steve Greenland <steveg@moregruel.net> writes:

> On 16-Oct-03, 13:11 (CDT), Otavio Salvador <otavio@debian.org> wrote: 
>> Yes but to my sense is really better to enduser have this packages
>> splited since the search-citeseer can work (without problems) without
>> the -el part and I want provide this option for our users.
> My sense is exactly the opposite: people who don't use the -el will not
> be inconvenienced by a few Kb of extra files, but those who want them
> will have to go through extra effort to get them, after figuring out
> why part of the upstream package is missing. And _everyone_ will have a
> fractionally larger Packages file to download, and yet another package
> item in whatever browser tool they use, cluttering searches.

Yes. This way to show issues is the right one but the James way is
not. He doesn't do a suggestion but an exigency. This is wrong.

> And forget the "It's not in Policy" argument. Policy doesn't say "don't
> put 'rm -rf /' in the postinst" either, but that doesn't make it a good
> thing to do. Policy doesn't say "The minimum package size is N bytes",
> because that doesn't make any sense - a package is as big as it needs to
> be. Policy is intended to be a minimal document, the least that we need
> to regulate to make a coherent integrated system. 

Yes but policy also include what we have don't do.

> Glancing at a even few of the core packages should convince you that it
> is not general practice to split upstream packages into the smallest
> possible subsets. Everyone who has replied to your question (as of this
> writing) has said it's a bad idea to split a package this small. If you
> honestly wanted our opinions, this consistent response should be enough
> to make you reconsider. If you were expecting a universal "Oh, that evil
> James Troup, he's a power mad dictator" response, well, sorry, that's a
> different thread, and a different topic.

Yes. The reson of my first mail is exactly this. I want make some
troube to warn the way of some Debian Developpers do their work. James
have the better itention possible, to have small subset possible of
packages and like but the way of request it is wrong.

James should be more cordial and try talk with developpers. We
(developpers) are all tring to do a great distribution and we should
always discuss that things and doesn't thing we are always right.

        O T A V I O    S A L V A D O R
 E-mail: otavio@debian.org      UIN: 5906116
 GNU/Linux User: 239058     GPG ID: 49A5F855
 Home Page: http://www.freedom.ind.br/otavio

Reply to: