[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

William Pitcock dijo [Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 08:02:39PM -0600]:
> 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. 
> Package descriptions should stick to positive aspects of the package,
> and not try to draw comparisons towards other packages. IMO.
> 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.
> As such, I think the revised description is perfectly acceptable for
> Debian.

Unlike Guus', my argument does is not that we have enough small http
servers - Even if features are duplicated, people will prefer one over
another because the configuration is easier to grok (being
«grokability» a merely subjective quality) or because they are
implemented using their language or paradigm of choice. Maybe the same
feature-set will be implemented in such a different way there is value
in having different packages. I'm nobody to judge.

But the user should not have to install 10 small HTTP servers just to
know what's the goddamn difference. That's extremely unhelpful from
us. We should tell the prospective user at a first glance why he wants
one httpd over another.


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: