On Fri, 18 Dec 2020, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Who is keeping software out of Debian here? We, collectively, with the fact that we have not adapted our rules and tooling. (And yes you certainly did more than me on this front, in particular in the tooling front, I'm not arguing against that) > Me, considering proper packaging of greenbone-security-assistant a > possible task? > > Or you, considering it an impossible task? Please don't make it personal. I did not and I ask you to not do it. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it's not realistic for volunteer maintainers, and even for the few that have the chance to be paid for it, they can't justify the expense to do it following the current rules and policies. > Or if you are talking about the Kali helper tool here, then please do > share more details of that wonderful tool, so we can know if you are > talking about a way to make the impossible-in-your-view possible while > still complying with Debian Policy, or the wonder really is in an > implied relaxing of packaging quality. There's no wonderful tool. It's just that we don't have the same rules. And I don't agree that the "packaging quality" is worse in this specific case. We have certainly made ugly things at times, but in this specific case, relying on the uptsream build system is certainly not "bad quality", the tool works and it likely works better when we can ensure that we use the same set of libraries than upstream compared to the random versions that happen to be in Debian at any given time. Cheers, -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Raphaël Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ The Debian Handbook: https://debian-handbook.info/get/ ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Debian Long Term Support: https://deb.li/LTS
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature