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

Re: Lintian pickiness and packaging improvements

On Friday 23 October 2009 11:15:16 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23 2009, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > On Thursday 22 October 2009 22:37:54 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 22 2009, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> >> > Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> >>         I also think that style issues should not be a part of even
> >> >>  Pedantic checks. If a package is using a different, and arguably
> >> >>  better style, then lintian should keep its nose out.
> >> >
> >> > If there's a better style I guess nobody would object to consider
> >> > recommend it or
> >>
> >>         You are not getting it. Better is subjective.
> >
> > That's not always true.  Better can be subjective, but it can also be
> > objective.
>         A packaging style, by definition, is subjective. I would not be
>  called a style other wise.

In our context "style" means "a manner of doing things".  They are *not* 
"necessarily subjective" (whatever that means) and they can be objectively 
analyzed and compared.

> > If a style scores better on all the metrics we care about that another
> > style, it is objectively better.  If a style has advantages over
> > another, but the other does not have an advantage over the first, the
> > first style is objectively better.
>         Given that we are talking about subjective issues to start with,
>  the criteria for judging these are also subjective. The metrics are
>  subjective, and the whole thing is hand waving and a wash of psuedo
>  objectivity.

Refuted above.  There's nothing about the word "style" that implies the object 
it somehow outside the realm of reasoning and judgment.

> > We shouldn't warn on subjectively better style, but be should warn on
> > objectively poor style.
>         I think that here objective and style is an oxymoron.

Again, refuted above.

> >>         Here is an excerpt from aptitude (lines edited to remove size
> >>  and version info for email):
> >> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> >> i  kernel-package    A utility for building Linux kernel related Debian
> >> i  module-assistant  tool to make module package creation
> >> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
> >>
> >>         Frankly, I like the
> >>  Package-Name: A short sentence with a period.
> >>   way better.
> >
> > Neither of those are a sentence.
>         Shrug. I see it as I said:
>  Package-Name: A short sentence with a period.
>    While you correctly assert, somewhat pedantically, that "A short
>  sentence with a period."  is not a sentence, I assert that it looks
>  better.

I state an objective fact, and am correct.

You state a subjective opinion, and I disagree.

(Yes, I'm being redundant on purpose.)

> > The first lacks a verb (or verb phrase).  The second also lacks a
> > period and capital letter, but that actually makes it *easier* to use
> > in an actual sentence, since it doesn't have to be modified to be used
> > as a noun phrase.
>         Irrelevant, seeing that in a decade and a half no one has done
>  anything to take short descriptions into a sentence.

I disagree.  One has an objective advantage over the other -- it can be used 
in grammatically correct structures.  Which one "looks better" is a subjective 
metric and shouldn't trump objective advantages.
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.           	 ,= ,-_-. =.
bss@iguanasuicide.net            	((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy 	 `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/        	     \_/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: