Re: dput: Call for feedback: What should change? What should stay the same?
Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org> writes:
> What does ‘dput’ do that you think really should not be changed?
> What does ‘dput’ do that you wish it would stop doing?
> What do other tools do better than ‘dput’? Do you think that ‘dput’
> should change to do those tasks the same way?
I'm not the best person to give feedback on dput since I switched over to
dput-ng completely and have never looked back. But I suppose that's a
data point from one user who greatly appreciates the changes in dput-ng
and would be happy to have that be the default dput.
I am kind of meh on the JSON configuration format for dput-ng, though.
I have never managed to work out how to use dcut (from either dput or
dput-ng) in fewer than five tries each time I've needed to use it. I'm
not sure what it is with that command, but I find it completely baffling
to use correctly. Usually I manage to find some way to name the wrong
thing in the command, refer to it incorrectly, or pick the wrong way to do
whatever I'm trying to do. And I use it so rarely that I never remember
what mistakes I made the next time I try.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: