I'd like to focus this discussion on my package, at least as an example. It seems to me that although it is simple, it is useful, nonobvious, and nonredundant with anything in Debian. Maybe the criteria shouldn't be the length of the script, but something else like general appeal, reuseability, etc.? Of course everyone who knows Perl could rewrite my 340 line script, but if it's useful to them, wouldn't it be better to distribute it through Debian? Are there any guidelines out there beyond the DFSG about what sort of software belongs in Debian? -- Adam Kessel http://bostoncoop.net/adam  http://bostoncoop.net/adam/randomplay On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 11:49:57AM -0500, John Buttery wrote: > * Brian Nelson <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2003-09-08 07:19:08 -0700]: > > That is certainly not all that matters. If every script anyone tried > > to write was included in Debian, Debian would collapse under its own > > weight. > > How? I mean, as long as the package was maintained. Although, if > you're talking about bandwidth and disk space expenses to the mirror > sponsors, then you do have a point there. The phrase "collapse under > its own weight" suggests to me, though, that you're talking about > something else, ie something about coordinating things regardless of > data storage logistics. I guess I'm not really an expert on how the > "Debian machine" ticks internally, but it seems like whatever system has > already scaled to 8-9000 packages should scale the same way up to 30K or > 40K packages? > > > I find it hard to believe any 340 line script would merit > > its own package. I think it would be much more worthwhile to try to > > get it added to an existing package, such as one of the command-line > > players. > > While a solution like this is certainly preferable to not having > something in at all, I think it's a mistake to package different > programs with (potentially) different needs in the same deb.
Description: PGP signature