Re: Bits from the dpkg maintainer
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:30:07 +0100, Scott James Remnant <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> That's sadly totally untrue. Either you mean "use all the source in
> the archive with the DPKG-DEV available in stable" -- or it was
> utterly violated by all the packages in the sarge period that used
> (e.g.) debhelper features available in woody.
> It's no harder to backport dpkg-dev than it is debhelper; so I think
> it really just comes down to what formats the FTP masters (and dear
> katie) are prepared to accept.
Umm. While true, I consider this unfortunate (part of my rant
on helper packages in general), and I would prefer we did not make
selective single package backporting an exercise in recompiling large
chunks of the release. I understand that there are times when one
needs to backport other packages (which is why they are called
dependencies, yes) as well, but we should try an minimize coupling.
It would be nice is we tried to actively make the situation
better, rather than pointing to current obstacles and using them as
justification for making matter worse. Tight coupling in modular
systems is not something to be encouraged.
"In matrimony, to hesitate is sometimes to be saved." Butler
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C