[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFS: opus, uuwaf



OoO Lors de la soirée naissante  du samedi 17 mai 2008, vers 18:00, Neil
Williams <codehelp@debian.org> disait:

>> > The reason is that some other applications we have depend upon the
>> > framework, but don't use the preferences system. 

> IMHO a good enough reason for a package split. No other explanation is
> necessary in my book.

>> Well, I  understand the purpose, but  from a Debian point  of view, this
>> package is  useless and  should be merged. 

> I disagree. This is a functional package split - the kind of thing that
> needs to be encouraged in Debian to allow choice. Why should the package
> provide a preference system on all installations when it is perfectly
> usable without it and some other mechanism can be used.

To be honest, the prominent reason  that told me that this package split
is  not legit is  that uuwaf-preferences  is only  there to  configure a
database. This is not a plugin for uuwaf or a subsystem, it does not add
a line  of code.  If  the package contained  a single PHP file,  I would
understand the split.  The code that handles this  database should be in
uuwaf-preferences.

I don't  find the code  in question  in uuwaf.  It  seems that it  is in
opus. If I  understand correctly, the database schema  is generic enough
to be used  by several applications but too generic to  have any line of
code  attached to  it.   So,  there is  no  function add_value()  helper
function  because  it  is  easier  to  have  a  specialized  version  in
applications using this database, right?

In this case, I step back from my "crazy" requirement.
-- 
BOFH excuse #378:
Operators killed by year 2000 bug bite.

Attachment: pgp7XNNDrw_Ig.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: