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

Re: Debian Science Policy

Am Montag, den 26.01.2009, 21:47 +0100 schrieb Manuel Prinz:
> Am Montag, den 26.01.2009, 18:50 +0100 schrieb Daniel Leidert:
> > This is *not* the policy of Debian Science! 
> You're right. It's a draft and a recommendation, and it states that.
> > Being part of Debian Science just requires to care about scientific
> > packages or related goals. It will (and must) *never* require to
> > follow any packaging policy except the Debian policy and it also must
> > not require to join Alioth!
> I do not know the original thread but I highly doubt that anyone has
> said that.

The thread is in pkg-scicomp-devel and it was not promoted as draft.

> Debian Science as a project/blend currently offers a space
> for packages to reside in a public repository, currently hosted on
> Alioth.

Do you mean: debian-science.alioth.d.o == "Debian Science"? Are you
kidding me? Please get serious. It is maybe a place to pickup
packages/developers not fitting into existing groups or don't wanting to
join existing groups. It is not "Debian Science". It is a small
packaging repository - one out of several.

> Of course there is no need to put stuff on Alioth but one can do
> so if (s)he desires to do so. Some people did already and I do not see
> why they should be wrong in doing so.

You e.g. state a requirement to join Alioth to join "Debian Science".
That is simply bullshit. Whoever contributes to the pool of packages
doesn't need to join anything.

> Noone ever drove any efforts to destroy existing teams or whatever you
> seem to imply here. Packaging under the Debian Science scope is a
> possibility to add scientific packages if no appropriate subgroup exists
> or the packager is not aware of.

Exactly. debian-science.alioth.d.o != "Debian Science".

> If it's better suited to some other
> team, so be it. But it does not mean that putting packages under Debian
> Science is nonsense.

It is nonsense to mix local preferences/requirements with the global
scope of the Debian Science Policy.

> Also, noone dictated a policy. There was (and is) a draft and
> recommendation which some people follow, others don't. It's not dictated
> or enforced in any way. It mostly contains recommendations, so stating
> that tools are enforced is exaggeration. It's a policy like a lot of
> other subgroups, such as Debian Med, have.

The document doesn't title itself as a packaging guideline only
applicable to debian-science.alioth.d.o. So your claim, that it can be
compared to the debian-med policy is wrong.

> We wrote something up, we
> made it publically available for discussion,

Can you please point me to the RFC? The time I missed to answer, it was
IIRC promoted as "Debian Science Policy", not as a draft for discussion.

> and included all feedback
> we got. Since you declined to provide one, you're not really in the
> position to question the result.

LOL. This is exactly the arrogance, rudeness and the offending style I
found in the so called "policy". I think, that my work gives me enough
reputation and right to question the result.

> Stating "It's all crap anyway" is not
> constructive feedback, IMNSHO, and unfortunately, that is how I read
> your email.

I did never state "its *all* crap". I stated, that your local applicable
preferences and requirements are crap inside this document. Retitle it
or remove those parts.

> >  And: *If* we (all the teams and maintainers) ever agree on
> > one mailing list, then it will definitely not be an Alioth list.
> > debian-science exists.
> Debian-science@ has mainly been a user list and there was discussion
> about moving maintaining-related issues to a different list to not
> bother users on debian-science.

Can you please point me to the discussion? Why does the list description
doesn't reflect, that this is considered a "user list"? Why are still
most topics related to packaging and to coordinate where to put
packages? I'm curious about your statement.

> > Stop announcing your very own and personal packaging policy as the
> > "Debian Science Policy". I'm not amused and some kind of pissed off.
> I'm not exactly sure with what your anger is but I doubt it is a
> document.

It is. Believe it or not.

> Your tone does not help the people interested in driving this
> blend forward in any way, and Sylvestre is surely one of them and has
> nothing but the best intentions.

I never said anything about your or Sylvestres intention. But e.g.
recommendations of tools imply an intention. Not?

> I would really appreciate it if you get
> back here when you calmed down and we can have a fruitful discussion.

And again the same arrogance as above. I suggest you think about what I
wrote, instead to teach me, if and when I'm allowed to come back or
comment on something.

> As already stated, it was not in anyone's intent to establish personal
> packaging practices as a global policy.

You've put your personal packaging preferences in a document titled with
"Debian Science Policy". Fact.


Reply to: