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

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003



On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 09:08:10PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Martin Pitt wrote:
> > But IMHO it does make sense to have NMs to prove that they are able to
> > improve the existing Debian system, not only to make it grow by adding
> > new packages; otherwise, the whole distribution would get worse and
> > worse over time. IMHO it is more important to maintain a high-quality,
> > but smaller distribution than having a giant one which is in bad
> > shape.

> I think that this over-generalization is wrong.

> I strongly believe that some new packages (e.g. mine), which add a 
> unique and requested function to Debian (here enabling chipcard based 
> homebanking) are a much better enhancement to Debian than adopting 
> some old ones (e.g. xtrojka - cf. Joey Hess' post to the "sister 
> thread" on Debian).

And adopting is the only way to improve the existing system?  I would
argue that finding bad packages and *filing for their removal* is a far
better example of improving the existing Debian system than adopting a
package that no one uses.

I also agree that Debian is already too big for us to continue adding
unlimited developers to our ranks who are only interested in working on
their pet packages.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpZLsbbWDCPO.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: