Re: dput: Call for feedback: What should change? What should stay the same? [and 1 more messages]
- To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: dput: Call for feedback: What should change? What should stay the same? [and 1 more messages]
- From: Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 14:45:02 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20170102134502.GC27110@an3as.eu>
- In-reply-to: <85tw9mv6rg.fsf@benfinney.id.au>
- References: <0ecdab48-7f9e-9dc3-11d9-d63f56bbba5e@debian.org> <85k2akwu6s.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <4549b35e-7e06-2bc2-cbf2-4d3ca75657b3@iwakd.de> <22628.12254.227441.452562@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <CAO6P2QTsL__pe083y+d8oeu=ywfzFA8yi88_PMOPvuAaGUnKmA@mail.gmail.com> <85tw9mv6rg.fsf@benfinney.id.au>
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 07:07:31AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> Much appreciated. Yes, one aspiration I eventually hope to achieve have
> is to resolve the fork by merging the desirable features of both back
> into ‘dput’, and discarding behaviour that we decide is no longer
> helpful.
Freedom of choice sometimes turns out as burden of choice if its about
such a simple thing as uploading data on the command line. I was always
wondering why we need two tools and the `dcut dm` feature was my reason
to choose dput-ng.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: