Re: Status of gwyddion
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008, Jan Beyer wrote:
dependencies. Your arguing that you have a python | ruby | perl
dependency sounds a little bit weak. I would personally depends from
all of the interpreting languages if the user might need them for
whatever purpose.
hmm, that is actually one of points I dislike most myself... On the other
hand, I don't want to depend all three languages, that would draw in a lot of
packages, which are (at the moment) quite useless, as there are no actual
plugins packaged/available.
Well, Perl is by default installed and Python has gained such an
importance that chances are quite good that it is installed on most
machines (96% according to popcon) so it is nearly a non issue to
try to avoid a Python dependency. Ruby has a percentage of 23%
according to popcon and thus I would go with a recommends for
ruby which leaves the user some choice.
Additionally, the whole plugin-thing will be
discontinued ASAP, according to upstream, so I have the whole
gwyddion-plugins package only for completeness. But if you feel strongly,
that this is a really bad way, than I will of course change it. I'm still
quite a newbie in Debian packaging...
Well, it is not about my personal opinion. We just should discuss
which way the end user might serve best. IMHO there is no harm done
when some frequently used interpreting languages are listed as
dependency if there is a chance that a user might like to try some
features of the package. I have to admit that I have no idea about
the typical gwyddion usage and thus my opinion is quite weak here.
I just stumbled upon the overrides which I would feel inapropriate
normally.
gwyddion is actually already in the SVN... ;-)
Ahh - sorry. The fact that Steffen is your sponsor would be another
hint. ;-)
I did not yet change the maintainer, as I don't know, if there is interest
from some others to work on one more piece of software, which is quite at the
edge of your main interests. But again, if there is interest, I can change
this, too...
Well, we have several packages that is basically maintained by a
single person. But there are often systematically things to change
(like adding tags to all control files, fixing bugs from mass bug
filings or something like that) that are sometimes even done by scripts.
So I would be in favour of the group as maintainer (believe me -
it took me a long time to be convinced of this for my own packages ;-)).
Just add you as the first Uploader (even if you have no real
upload rights for the moment - but perhaps you might pass the NM
queue at one day). The first Uploader is in general the main
responsible real person.
And, of course: feel free to look for quirks in the packaging, if you like! I
am very thankful for any hints, improving the packaging! (And if it saves a
further REJECT and following new upload, than Steffen will probably be
equally happy... ;-) )
If you add the group as maintainer we all will read the reasons
for rejection and might become involved ... ;)
Have a nice evening,
Same to you
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: