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

Re: Whatâ??s the use for Standards-Version?

Le mercredi 12 août 2009 à 14:17 -0400, Neil Roeth a écrit :
> If people don't have time to handle all their packages properly, they should
> reduce the number of packages they maintain.

I’ve seen this kind of arguments again and again, and every time it
looks more stupid to me. If you don’t have anything more interesting to
say, maybe you could consider shutting up.

It’s easy to try teaching lessons, but how about a reality check? Most
Debian developers are interested only in maintaining their pet package,
not in belonging to core teams. If what you suggest is that core teams
should abandon their packages, you can immediately start looking for a
new operating system.

> I suspect you are right, the general quality might not be up to my standards.
> However, as Manoj said, we did all sign up to maintain packages that conform
> to policy, and I think the problem you are describing is with some DDs not
> living up to their commitment rather than with the current process.

I signed up to produce the best operating system possible. And
unfortunately it doesn’t seem possible to do it with a 100 packages

> Removing
> this just makes it easier for people to be sloppy, shift work onto someone
> else, and pretend they are living up to that commitment.

Or maybe that makes it easier for people to shift work onto something
more useful.

> Why would you bump the standards version without actually checking to see if
> the package meets that standard?  That's worse than leaving it as it was.  I
> trust myself to make a conscientious effort to do it correctly if I choose to
> do it at all, but I no longer trust you.

I’m glad to learn that I can trust you to correctly put numbers in your
control files.

 .''`.      Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'   “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in
  `-     future understand things”  -- Jörg Schilling

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=

Reply to: