Re: Lintian pickiness and packaging improvements
On Fri, Oct 23 2009, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> 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.
Nope. There are a number of ways of accomplishing the same
technical goal, distinguished only by personal preference. If the end
result is the same, only subjective opinions exist.
>> > 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
> Refuted above. There's nothing about the word "style" that implies
> the object it somehow outside the realm of reasoning and judgment.
Red herring. If there are a bunch of eqivalent methods of
achieving the goal, then selecting one is a matter of personal
>> > 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.
Falsely, I think.
>> >> 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
> I state an objective fact, and am correct.
You state an irrelevant fact.
> You state a subjective opinion, and I disagree.
Which is what styles are all about.
> (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.
Objective advantage for the sake of crafting sentences,
perhaps. For letting users know what a package is all about? I think
It could also be objectively better for the goal of preseving
the global supply of periods.
Irrelevant advantages should not be considered for lintian
Last post. Take it to private email, once you have had the final
word on the subject.
A wise man can see more from the bottom of a well than a fool can from a
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C