Re: PCalendar

[Miriam Ruiz <little_miry@yahoo.es>]

--- El dom, 9/10/11, Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> escribió:

> Hi Miriam,

Hi!

> thanks for maintaining PCalendar and even more just doing
> it inside the
> Debian Med team which raised my awareness to put it into
> our tasks.  When
> doing so I realised that we now have three packages which
> try to fullfill
> more or less the same purpose: cycle, mencal and
> pcalendar.  I guess you
> know the other packages and had your reasons to package
> pcalendar.  The
> other packages seem to be dead upstream and thus I wonder
> if we do more
> good to our users if we would simply drop cycle and/or
> mencal to simplify
> the choice for our users to easily find the best choice out
> of three.
> 
> What do your think?

Well, mencal and cycle are by far more limited than pcalendar and, as you say, they are dead upstream. In my opinion their only advantages is that mencal works in the console, and cycle is coded in python and is lighter than pcalendar, which is coded in Java and is somehow bigger. In any case, pcalendar is the most serious of the three, the other two are nice but are too simple and unreliable in general. Cycle would really need a major code revision, to be honest. I'm concerned for the users who would like to keep their data, anyway, so it might be wise to make a tiny piece of code to convert its data to something useful for other programs, maybe to pcalendar itself, before removing it. In any case, as I said, pcalendar is heavier, and I wonder if anyone is using cycle in a tiny computer where pcalendar might not work. It works OK in my tiny atom netbook, though.

My personal opinion is that pcalendar overpasses them both, anyway. In any case, I'd give it some time before doing anything, as both mencal and cycle seem to have some users according to popcon. Unless they stop working for any reason and need serious fixing, of course.

> Kind regards and thanks for working together with the
> Debian Med team

Thanks!! :)

Greetings,
Miry