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

Re: Bug#468183: ITP: monkey -- small webserver based on the HTTP/1.1 protocol

Hash: SHA1

On 02/28/08 20:02, William Pitcock wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 18:47 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>> Even there, it looks very much like other "very small" webservers,
>> such as boa, bozohttpd, cherokee, fnord, lighttpd, micro-httpd,
>> mini-httpd or thttpd. What does it do better than any of them? Or
>> worse? Or different?
> Why does a package need to clarify what's different about it than others
> like it? Debian is about having the possibility of choosing between many
> options for the same thing e.g. openssh, dropbear for sshd, 12 different
> httpd options, etc. 

Because when the long descriptions of many different "competing"
packages all say essentially the same thing, then those descriptions
are meaningless.

> Package descriptions should stick to positive aspects of the package,
> and not try to draw comparisons towards other packages. IMO.

That's fine.  But when it's something as relatively simple as a
small httpd, you need to spell out specifics as to why I should use
monkey instead of cherokee, boa, thttpd, fnord, etc.

The micro-httpd description is a good example.

> It seems to me as if you are trying to get people to justify the
> packages they want to work on. If that is the case, then, I think
> "because the person wants to use _this_ package" is fine. Infact, I
> would go as far as saying that the wide latitude of software options for
> a specific task is one of the greatest strengths of Debian.

It's not "why should you *package* this s/w", it's "convince me that
I should *use* this package".

> As such, I think the revised description is perfectly acceptable for
> Debian.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

"(Women are) like compilers.  They take simple statements and
make them into big productions."
Pitr Dubovitch
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)


Reply to: