❦ 26 mai 2019 12:04 +02, Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk>: >> > * People who make changes across the archive such as enabling >> > hardening, cross-building, bootstrapping, etc benefit >> > significantly from more uniformity in packaging practices. The >> > time they spend working on packages that use dh is significantly >> > less. That is, people working on making Debian more reproducible >> > benefit from when we adopt more uniform practices. >> >> It has also been said that non-unformity makes also the life of >> everybody more difficult when they look at a random package. This >> includes non-DD/DM people. We have a reputation of having difficult >> packaging practices. We uphold this reputation as long as we have so >> many ways to do the same thing. > > We "uphold this reputation" by maintaining many packages, which is > good. Do we? I am now using nix to get packages for stuff not in Debian. Our package count is artificially inflated by *-perl packages, golang-* packages which may not be present in some other distributions. But for some ecosystems, we are severely behind. We may argue we are better on some metrics, but this has nothing to do with the fact we have so many ways to build a package. -- English literature's performing flea. -- Sean O'Casey on P. G. Wodehouse
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature