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

Re: On the subject of watchfiles (was Re: Proposed MBF: Debian upstream version higher than watch file-reported upstream version)

Andreas Tille dijo [Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 08:21:47PM +0100]:
> >Heh, start a bit earlier (think Ruby)... Educate maintainers to
> >release proper .tar.gz, not braindead .gem packages containing the
> >equivalent to an orig.tar.gz (but created due to a nice
> >don't-ask-me-why-that's-not-properly-implemented bug in December 31,
> >1969)... And then complaining if you are distributing in stable
> >anything older than their nightly checkouts.
> >
> >Yes, Perl and the CPAN rock my world, although my programming is
> >nowadays mostly Ruby-based. The Ruby general mindset is WAY inferior.
> What?
> I admit I would have been able to parse the contents of your mail
> with the same success if you would have written in Spanish. :)
> Prehaps it is me who had to get up 4:20 this morning (so I started
> *really* early ;-) ) - but I do not even understand whether this is pro or contra proper watch files.

Sorry, I'm a bit incoherent as well  - due to all kind of unrelated
events :) 

I'm completely pro-watch. It is fundamental to the way pkg-perl
works. As said IIRC by Tincho, there is no way to keep track of over
670 packages without automated tools.

What really brings me down is that this is impossible in communities
such as the Ruby one, which uses a incoherent and brain-dead packaging
format, and insists on shoving it on distributions' throats. Bah.

Gunnar Wolf - gwolf@gwolf.org - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973  F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF

Reply to: