Re: Bug#788844: RFS: gbutils/5.6.6-1 [ITP]
Hi Tomasz,
Il giorno dom, 19/07/2015 alle 21.59 +0200, Tomasz Buchert ha scritto:
> On 15/07/15 15:11, Pietro Battiston wrote:
> > Il giorno dom, 12/07/2015 alle 20.38 +0200, Tomasz Buchert ha
> > scritto:
> > > On 11/07/15 00:37, Pietro Battiston wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > Just to clarify: I had understood your suggestion, and my answer to
> > it
> > is "I don't think it is practical for users". Think of it as
> > replacing
> > cat, echo, grep and others with "unixutils cat", "unixutils echo",
> > "unixutils grep"... the similarity breaks when we look at the
> > userbase,
> > but for those who do use gbutils... I think you get my point.
>
> Frankly, I don't get your point. These are basic Unix programs, used
> all the time in scripts, command line, etc. And there is also
> tradition. The <program> <command> interface is not a bad idea: git
> uses it and I don't think that people find git "impractical".
>
No, but it does not happen frequently (if ever... at least to me) that
a single command line includes several git calls: it is frequent
instead with executables from gbutils, and this is the point I was
confusely trying to make.
(BTW: then, I am not a fan of the switch from "git-buildpackage" to
"gbp buildpackage", but it's probably just a matter of habit... and
anyway I'm going OT)
> But I don't really care, as long as the people at the NEW queue have
> nothing against it and the multitude of commands does not collide
> with
> anything else in the whole archive (have you checked?).
>
Yes! At least against anything which can be installed in /usr/bin - do
you think I am missing something?
> > [...]
>
> >
> > Related to your other email, I updated build-depends and depends so
> > that now all utilities/functionalities are compiled and installed,
> > and
> > introduced a patch fixing a few typos in the previously not
> > installed
> > utilities.
> >
> > Updated package:
> > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gbutils/gbutils_5.6.6
> > -1.dsc
> >
> > Thanks again!
>
> You're welcome. Do you want me to sponsor it?
Well... it would be great! A.k.a. "I currently don't have any
alternative".
> (in any case, don't
> forget to verify that there are no collisions, apt-file search is
> your
> friend)
>
Done, see above,
Pietro
Reply to: