RFC: DPM S 3.3: Every pkg must have maintainer?
RFC: create section orphans
as in: main contrib non-free orphans
Debian Policy Manual 3.3: Every pkg *must* have maintainer
BUT there is no Debian Policy about what software can't be Orphaned (now
software can orphaned for discriminatory purposes).
Nor is there a common sense ruler saying software that "just works" and is
useful won't be orphand.
If there's a Policy of removal, there must be one of Preservation.
That reads: people who put orphans in there sources.list can easily
download, say, uucp.
Infact, I've seen maintianers whine about orphaning a pkg they can't find
time to maintain (lets not even start that discussion of WHY that might
be). And these are some I wanted to adopt in the same demeanor.
So I'm sure it's not just me.
Thanks,
John D. Hendrickson
P.S.
OPINION (heavy opinion)
I see that some beleive old software shouldn't be in the "new main".
I don't agree. There are a lifetime of bugs and breaks and poor standards
planning in the new main: don't be so smug.
And if the old packages aren't working? They WERE. Until...
And let's not forget how much of this "old software" was used by everyone
while building that "new main".
Let's ALSO not forget that the reason there are so many packages not
working is the tendency to keep changing things that work without DOING IT
THE RIGHT WAY, and to keep splitting the plate into peice for installation
(which to me is just what causes too many problems with X, GNOME, and
KDE).
I compile allot of software, like X, just because I can't *find* and the
related packages: and X is perfect the way it compiles.
I refuse to beleive end users really want 25 have to trace down X packages
(having a hard time of determining which reall belongs to the real
release) when they are trying to get X up and running.
Like anyone wants X without fonts? Please. It's like a sad excuse to
tamper with something that's perfect the way it is: X.
I'll have nightmares thinking new UNIX users won't have equal access to
historic unix tools: which are often better and more powerful than the new
software to a matured unix user.
Because what new user is going to find out, say, uucp, is in pool when
there package manager says it doesn't exist?
Should new users really have to install Potato to use uucp? That just
doesn't extend the privelages the current DM's had (to use old but working
software) to the new users.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Reply to: