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. ,= ,-_-. =. email@example.com ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.