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

Re: Working on debian developer's reference and "best packaging practices"

On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 10:42:02AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
>  Anthony> There is _absolutely_ no call for other packaging tools, and
>  Anthony> absolutely _no_ need for a standard to make this easy or
> 	Yeah, right. There is never any need for competition or
>  diversification, or any standards that may acknowledge the difference
>  between an interface and documentation of a specific implementation.

No. There is plenty of need for some standardisation. There is no need for
*this* standardisation.

>  Anthony>     . Reforming policy into a pointless standards
>  Anthony> document, while gutting all the useful best practices
>  Anthony> information into an as-yet hypothetical new document seems a
>  Anthony> lot like a pointless exercise in bureacracy.
> 	Whatever. I see you have no interest in meaningful dialog
>  (pointless standard), 

If you're interested in meaningful dialogue, I'd invite you to answer the
question you cut from my previous mail:

] A simple question: who, today, will be helped by having a document 
] called "debian policy" that documents the interfaces to dpkg?

Perhaps I should've written "standardises" instead of "documents". The
meaning of the question, to try to avoid pedantic squabbles, is "please
name the people who'll benefit from these changes". If you can't name
anyone, I'd contend quite strongly that you've got no way of judging if
the changes are successful or not, and thus a good chance of doing them
poorly. Further, since no one needs them, doing them is a waste of time
and energy.

>  I'll refrain from pointing out that policy has
>  always defined the format of version numbers, Control files,
>  changelogs, and other details of how a package interfaces with the
>  packaging system. Chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the curtrent
>  policy already define the interface.

I'm so glad you refrained from doing that.

>  Anthony> As one of the agitators for a policy team rather than a
>  Anthony> policy dictator, one might've hoped that at the very least
>  Anthony> you might at least try to reach a consensus, rather than
>  Anthony> dictating from on high about what policy will and won't be.
> 	Had I been a dictator (unlike the  RM), we would never have
>  been having this pointlessly futile discussion. 

If you were seeking consensus, rather than having already decided,
this wouldn't be a pointless or futile discussion.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

     ``BAM! Science triumphs again!'' 
                    -- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif

Attachment: pgpG6f5Fbbnt2.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: