Re: XS-Python-Version vs pyversions
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 03:53:31PM +0700, Mikhail Gusarov wrote:
>
>> Twas brillig at 20:21:31 07.09.2009 UTC-07 when vorlon@debian.org did gyre and gimble:
>
>> >> SL> They were part of the design that came out of the python
>> >> SL> packaging BoF in DebConf 6 that you then proceeded to ignore
>> >> SL> entirely.
>
>> >> Is this design and rationale written down somewhere? It's hard to
>> >> follow policy which contains completely opaque requirements.
>
>> SL> No, it's pretty much bitrotted away by now
>
>> Thanks to those who did not communicate ideas outside of the DC
>> attendants.
>
> Bullshit. Spare me your ignorant preaching and go read the mailing list
> archives.
Oh yet another BoF where the people taking part started to think they can rule
the rest of the world without talking to it.
>> SL> thanks to people deciding to discard all the efforts of the session
>> SL> in question
>
>> Which were not documented.
>
> They were documented. The documentation has bitrotted because consensus was
> abandoned.
>
> It once lived at <http://people.debian.org/~piman/python-policy/> - before
> the python policy process degenerated into such an absurd mess that the
> maintainer left Debian entirely.
There was a policy process? Asking the Python maintainer about the way the
policy is changed the answer was pretty much "it is decided and written by the
Python maintainer, an nobody else". There is no process, there is a one man show.
>> Single "why?" document would help to resolve situation much better than
>> endless whining about "bad python-support developers". Just accept the
>> facts that you've failed to communicate ideas behind policy,
>
> Bullshit. The python-support maintainer knows the reasons already. This
> was not a failure of communication, only a failure of collaboration.
Or a 'no I don't implement useless ideas'.
>> reevaluate situation and propose something that is constructive, this will
>> be beneficial for all of us.
>
> And why would that work any better now than it did three years ago? If
> anything, the responses in this thread show that the list is far more beset
> with python-support apologists now, who are even less willing to approach
> the problem from a policy perspective and are only interested in defending
> their favorite tool.
The reason why people prefer python-support is easy:
- the upstream author is responsive
- the upstream author fixes bugs in time
- it just works as expected
- it doesn't need such ugly workarounds like "nomove"
That alone are more than enough reasons to to use -central. Its not my fault
that the upstreams of both helpers are not able to collaborate, but if you have
the choice, you choose the better tool, which is python-support now.
--
Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer
GPG Fingerprints: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79
ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F
Reply to: