Re: Bug#625865: ITP: ocportal -- ocPortal is a Content Management System for building and maintaining a dynamic website
On Friday 06 May 2011 20:30:32 Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> 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.
Here are some points to consider:
* responsible for the uploads and overall package quality is the one whose key
is in debian-keyring and who actually uploads the package, obviously.
* writing a meaningful ITP helps to grab attention, especially if there are
multiple alternatives. Prove your point (ref: I'm upstream and I want to
maintain it, doesn't magically buy you a slot into the archive)
* writing lengthy rebuttals for well known facts from the past are quite
unlikely, people has more important things to do.
* recognize the fact when someone says that chances are high you are about to
be wasting your own time packaging $something.
If someone capable uploads it since it is found to be useful for whatever
reason that's fine, which is unlikely imo, otherwise it is a waste of human
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>