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

Re: duplicates in the archive

On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 06:51:47PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 19:31:12 +0200
> Arno Töll <arno@debian.org> wrote:
> Dropping the bug CC.
> > On 24.06.2012 19:15, Neil Williams wrote:
> > > This bug is *not* useful to anyone. Please close it and find an
> > > RC bug to close instead.
> > 
> > I'm pretty sure this could be expressed in another tone. Especially
> > since we welcome everyone (you know) and we have _no_ written rule what
> > belongs into Debian and what not, and nobody who decides on that beyond
> > legal issues.
> This isn't about welcoming people, this is about keeping pointless
> vanity packages out of the archive. We don't need absolute rules on
> this but the whole point of ITP bugs being CC'd to this list is so that
> people on this list get a chance to head off mistakes. Adding another
> pointless alternative for packages which are already duplicated over
> and over *is* a mistake.
> Maybe the Developer Reference should be strengthened to require a check
> against the existing archive as well as the WNPP list but, IMHO, that's
> a bit of common sense which all maintainers and prospective maintainers
> should be able to demonstrate. If you feel that's not common, feel free
> to file a bug against the Developer Reference.
> Whatever happens, there is no place for yet another duplicate of
> packages which already have multiple duplicates in the archive.
> There isn't even any point waiting for such packages to get RC bugs to
> be able to remove them. Stop them getting in in the first place.

Hi Neil,

I agree with Arno about the tone.

I don't have a strong opinion on whether this package in particular should be
kept out of Debian.  You may be right about this package in particular, no

About allowing new packages in Debian in general : On the one hand you have a
point that Debian should not collect any free software, but on the other hand I
think that it is OK to have multiple implementations of the same/similar
functionality in Debian, and over time the popcon stats may indicate that a
newer package wins over an older package.  It is, in my opinion, not always
possible to judge the potential of a package before it has been in Debian for
some time.  Having competing alternatives in Debian is OK, even good, in my


Bart Martens

Reply to: