On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 20:14 +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote: > > I'm not sure what is going on with SQLite - it claims SQLite2 when > > Debian has SQLite0 and SQLite3. Have you managed to get dbishell to > > successfully connect to any sqlite database? > > No, because I don't have any sqllite db (that I know of ;) ); I only > tested with my personal mysql dbs and it worked fine. Ah. sqlite is relatively easy, if you are used to SQL. You can dump any MySQL table to SQL and import that into sqlite for the purposes of a test. > > If SQLite does not work, it should be clearly stated in the docs. If it > > does, but only for sqlite2 (which no longer exists), then either > > dbishell needs to support sqlite3 or all sqlite2 support should be > > removed/disabled and the docs updated to state as much. > > Thanks a lot for your really accurate analysis of this tool!! > > > Hmmm, quite a lot to do. Sorry about that. > > I'm sorry, but I care nothing about this package, and I've already > dedicated to it too much time than what it might deserve. The only > thing I can do it briefly update the manpage to highlight what you've > found and remove the verbatim licence from DBIShell/UTIL.pm . I thought that might be the case. CC'ing the bug report orphaning this package so that anyone looking to adopt it has a handle on just what would need to be done. > > Overall, I'm not entirely convinced that dbishell is a particularly > > useful or friendly package - it is rarely better than using whatever > > client the database provides itself, it has (currently) completely > > counter-intuitive syntax compared to the database clients and appears to > > be dead upstream. > > > > Are you sure it is worth keeping it in Debian? I'm not convinced. > > I did this QA package (like the others) on a popcon basis: it has ~800 > installation, so maybe someone still likes it or use it, or simply > those are old installations and it's not used anylonger. That is always possible - the 'vote' figures in popcon can give some indication of whether people are really using it and that figure is quite a small percentage of the overall installation count - only 1 in 8 installations were used in the previous popcon period and the popcon graph shows that this figure is going down, not up. It's been orphaned for 6 months, unreleased upstream for 6 years. > Feel free to reassign the O: bug to ftp.debian.org as RM: , if you > believe it's the case; if not, just let me know if you want me to do > those simple & fast changes, and I'll reupload it. The package does need more than just those simple changes, IMHO, it needs a new upstream but whether it still has a role when the integrated clients are so much more intuitive and usable, I'm not convinced. I've reassigned to ftp.debian.org and retitled as: "RM: dbishell -- RoQA; abandoned upstream, package in a bad shape, buggy, orphaned" For the benefit of the bug report, the problems, as I see them, with dbishell are documented at: http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2008/08/msg00417.html -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part