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

Re: Bug#625865: ITP: ocportal -- ocPortal is a Content Management System for building and maintaining a dynamic website

On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 20:03 +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Friday 06 May 2011 19:39:26 Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 13:24 -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote:
> > > On 05/06/2011 12:14 PM, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> > > > Q: How many content management systems written in php does Debian need?
> > > > A: How about zero?
> > > > 
> > > > Not exactly helpful.
> > > 
> > > When developers are passionately opposed to a particular technology (and
> > > not without reason here, I think,) they can be a bit blunt in expressing
> > > it. The list of these goes on and on ... and while I certainly would be
> > > more polite myself about expressing reservations about adding any more,
> > > I'm not going to fault others for expressing their dissent. The way you
> > > expressed your support seemed to me to gloss over the real cost of
> > > adding a new package to the archive without any coherent argument as to
> > > why this particular one was going to be no trouble at all (and/or worth
> > > the trouble because it's so special).
> > 
> > Strange that you read 'support' into my responses. Actually I have never
> > even heard of the proposed package, but that's not the point. I even
> > mentioned that if the package sucketh (if the guy proposing it proves
> > unreliable), then it can either remain in Unstable or be removed.
> Upload to 'unstable' and see how it goes could be quite suboptimal tactics 
> most of the time. I'm not talking about that particular package, but not every 
> package which flies in the free software skies deserves to be in Debian archive 
> in my own opinion. Inclusions costs human time.

I am not opposed to this. But again, that was not the point. Point was
automatic 'should not be in Debian' without giving reasons. And if
maintainer is willing to be on top of things, what extra work is there
for anyone, except those handling NEW?

> > You don't just blatantly oppose Debian inclusion without mentioning why.
> > The great Josselin Mouette (yes, I really respect this guy for his
> > tireless GNOME maintenance) just did that, and the rest of us are
> > supposed to magically possess the history of PHP in Debian, and laugh it
> > off.
> > 
> > And no, you should fault others for expressing their dissent in this
> > unproductive manner.
> Well, maybe if you look at that from a different angle, you can find it 
> productive as in: don't spend your time packaging that particular one, as 
> chances are very low for upload.

I don't understand what you are saying here. My point was the manner in
which the response was made. I used the word 'productive' because the
guy wasn't saying why he was objecting to this particular package.

Reply to: