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

Re: [Distutils] formencode as .egg in Debian ??



Le jeudi 24 novembre 2005 à 13:05 -0500, Phillip J. Eby a écrit :
> You seem to be confusing "users" with "Debian packagers" and "Debian 
> users", which are a subset of "users" where these projects are 
> concerned.  TurboGears targets Mac and Windows as well as Linux, and I've 
> seen people on the TurboGears mailing list using at least three major 
> packaging *tools* (e.g. .rpm, .deb, etc.), to say nothing of the count of 
> Linux *distributions*.  Obviously, Kevin *was* thinking of the users - eggs 
> are the only thing that would let his project reach so many of them.

Of course, I'm talking about Unix users. You seem to have already taken
care of Windows users.

> >Again, the ability to distribute it as a single package is good,
> 
> What "single package" are you talking 
> about?  http://turbogears.org/download/ lists eggs and source packages for 
> *10* different Python projects that it depends on, written by five 
> different authors.  Each is individually packaged, with eggs for Mac and 
> Windows, and source packages that can build eggs for everything else.

You're reinventing the wheel. Really. This isn't a matter for the
Windows world, as users are accustomed to various, broken tools to
install stuff, and this one will probably be less broken than others.
But MacOS and Linux distributions already have a unified packaging
system, and I don't think it's useful to invent another package type,
especially if it's only suitable for Python.

> >Yes, having that information is good. But there should be a way to
> >ignore it. Simply. Nothing more, nothing less. If egg-enabled packages
> >can also work without all this extra stuff, there's no problem for the
> >distributor.
> 
> What you're saying is, you want TurboGears to be able to blindly trust that 
> its dependencies are installed.

YES. Please.

> This doesn't help users, though, because 
> it keeps the package author from being able to provide *end-user support* 
> without learning the ins and outs of every distro and packaging system, so 
> he can tell the user what to run to find out if the dependencies are 
> *really* met.

No. Distributions all have their own bug-reporting tool, so that
distribution-related issues can be filtered out before such issues are
brought to you.

> The funny thing here is that just the .egg names *alone* have been wildly 
> useful; when a user posts an error message to the TurboGears mailing list, 
> you can tell right away exactly what the project versions are for every 
> piece of code in the stack trace.  It dramatically cuts down on the number 
> of, "Do you have version X of Y?" questions.

Same answer: at least the Debian bug reporting tool does it. We are not
trying to make your work harder, only to make our work easier.

> Being able to support users is good for users.  Being able to provide lots 
> of functionality using off-the-shelf libraries that have their own 
> documentation is good for users, too.  This is *all* about the users.

And making security bugs unfixable is good for users? We probably don't
have the same users, indeed.
-- 
 .''`.           Josselin Mouette        /\./\
: :' :           josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org
`. `'                        joss@debian.org
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=


Reply to: