Re: Proposing to appeal to the tech. comittee about language extensions in scripts.
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 06:01:52PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Dear Russ, Joey, Debian Med team and evrybody,
> Much has been said, and I am not criticizing the points that have been made
> in favor of renaming, nor I object to promote them to the developers at the
> moment where they chose a name for their new program, but my opinion as a
> user of these packages where the scripts would be renamed according to our
> policy (which I do not follow anymore since a couple of years), is that the
> drawbacks in terms of incompatibility with others, of transition to follow,
> of loss of backward compatibility when going back on an old project, etc.,
> are too heavy compared to the suggested benefits.
>
> I would like to know people's feeling about this.
Using language extensions is fundamentally wrong. I don't think that's
too controversial to state so bluntly. It will cause massive breakage
should the implementation language change. There are good reasons why
we have the policy, and while it's annoying when we come across
software which uses extensions, we should not accept it. That's part
of our job as a distributor, and not pushing back hard against it is to
fail to do our job properly. Requiring good practice on the part of
our upstreams is part of the "price" of being distributed as part of
Debian.
Regards,
Roger
--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `' schroot and sbuild http://alioth.debian.org/projects/buildd-tools
`- GPG Public Key F33D 281D 470A B443 6756 147C 07B3 C8BC 4083 E800
Reply to: