Re: Bug#392362: [PROPOSAL] Add should not embed code from other packages
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#392362: [PROPOSAL] Add should not embed code from other packages
- From: Ben Pfaff <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:07:50 -0700
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: email@example.com
- References: <20070618172743.GB3687@yellowpig> <20070625130221.GD23964@mx0.halon.org.uk> <20070625153353.GQ3320@yellowpig> <20070626125958.GM23964@mx0.halon.org.uk> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20070626223046.GO23964@mx0.halon.org.uk> <email@example.com> <20070704090125.GA26366@dario.dodds.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20070716215718.GA29591@roeckx.be> <20070815125236.GS18712@yellowpig> <email@example.com>
Russ Allbery <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr> writes:
>> I find the wording "convenience copy of library from other software
>> packages" much more telling than "convenience copy of code from other
>> software packages" that could be misinterpreted. For example, a lot of
>> packages include a convenience copy of scripts part of automake
>> (install-sh, depcomp, etc.). The sentence "Debian packages should not
>> make use of these convenience copies." seems to imply that they should
>> not be used.
> Bleh. That's a valid point and I'm not sure how to deal with it without
> going back to the previous wording.
One possible distinction is that in the Automake case, Automake
itself encourages distribution of convenience copies of parts of
itself. That is, it's the software that is copied, not the
software that is making use of the convenience copies, that is
encouraging people to make and use convenience copies.
"...In the UNIX world, people tend to interpret `non-technical user'
as meaning someone who's only ever written one device driver."