[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: pgpvZ4r4jbQpm.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: