Re: debian/pycompat usage?
Le dimanche 27 août 2006 à 23:33 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > As they are fundamentally broken (especially by bringing things at the
> > package level when they should have stayed at the module level), the
> > best fix is to remove them instead of asking package maintainers to
> > change all their packages when it is not needed.
>
> The information I'm looking for is at the package level, not at the module
> level.
Indeed. This is why these fields are inappropriate, because they concern
the module level, despite being stored in the package metadata.
> I have never seen any discussion on this list about the problems with the
> definitions of those fields;
Manoj raised these problems better than I would.
> the questions of their utility likewise seems
> to have only been raised in private. I think you have tried to kill off
> these fields because you personally disapprove of using the control files in
> this manner. Why else would you have gone ahead with the implementation
> without ever raising the subject on this list so that people could try to
> *resolve* the problems with these fields, or discuss alternate solutions
> that would meet the needs of those wanting the fields, before dispensing
> with them?
Because not only do I dislike this use of control files, but I also
dislike this "discuss policy first, code after" way of doing things. One
of the reasons for the python fiasco is that the crappy document that
was called "new policy" was written into stone before having even been
tried on a few packages. The best way to prove it was to write a better
implementation.
> The only developer I know of who has stepped back from python maintenance in
> Debian is Joe Wreschnig, who was quite explicit in expressing his
> disapproval for a policy *process* that involved competing implementations
> by maintainers who were not listening to each other, and behavior that was
> changing from day to day in unstable. I have never heard anyone object that
> any single proposal was too complicated.
This is the general impression I get from reading this list (people
asking for NMUs for changes that should have been trivial), private
discussion with maintainers, and bug reports. This transition may have
uncovered some packages that were already unmaintained, but it has also
discouraged some maintainers who thought they needed more time to
understand the "new policy".
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\
: :' : josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org
`. `' joss@debian.org
`- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Reply to: