Re: Improving the DAM-queue?
On 10/19/06, Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net> wrote:
On 19/10/06 at 03:10 -0400, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> As a user, the size of Debian's archive is a major selling point -
> possibly the single most important selling point, when compared to
> other Linux distributions - and I can only see increases in its
> coverage as a Good Thing.
Of course, in the case you described, a package would have been great.
Feel free to file a RFP for your simulator if one has not been filed
already.
I might at some point. However, I don't need it personally anymore
and so I'm reluctant to ask anyone else to spend time on it.
However, in many cases, free software developers tend to reinvent the
wheel quite often (so two apps can share the exact same goal and have
very similar designs, the only difference being that one is of less good
quality than the other). It's generally a bad idea to package both apps
in this case, because it increases the workload, reduces the
users-per-package ratio, etc.
I agree with this, but nonetheless I don't think that everything that
*should* be packaged *is*. Therefore. when I see people talking about
the archive in terms that presume it's already too big, I speak up.
It seems to me that there is plenty of room for new DDs and new
packages without resorting to packaging uninteresting or duplicative
junk.
> not subscribed, but please do *not* cc: me on responses, I read the web archive
Then how would you reply with the correct In-Reply-To or References
header, to avoid breaking the thread ?
By copying the appropriate data from the page header in the web
archive into my message header in mutt (edit_headers mode), just as I
did for my original post. (Yes, this one is being sent with Gmail,
but that's just laziness.)
Reply to: