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

Re: possible compromise for ITP: linux?

On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 06:22:13PM +0100, Eike Sauer wrote:
> The discussion doesn't seem to be very productive any more.
> Time to come to a compromise?
> Obviously, Robert is not going to retreat.

He doesn't need to, he can be slapped down.

> OTOH, most people (publicly) stating anything about his ITP
> had objections against the package as a whole or the name 
> or missing features or other things.

This is a mischaracterisation. Debian developers are usually good at
avoiding making excessive duplicate comments; in this case, there were
a lot of minor issues and misfeatures, and a few showstoppers. Given
these two things together, you can expect to see more mails about the
minor issues, simply because it takes more eyes to spot them all. We
don't ignore minor issues just because there are major ones.

That doesn't excuse the showstoppers. These are two big ones, off the
top of my head:

 - this packages adds nothing, and would occupy a fair chunk of space
   in the archive. The "advantages" cited were rapidly debunked and no
   more were given.

 - this package cannot be safely upgraded (without forcing a reboot).

The latter prohibits it from being in a Debian release. The former
should keep it out of the archive entirely.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: