Re: Debian Science Policy
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 27.01.2009, 11:26 -0800 schrieb Don Armstrong:
> > Since it wasn't discussed on -policy or -project or -science, it
> > quite clearly has domain relevance only for the debian-science
> > alioth project.
> This might be clear for all those, who contribute to "Debian
> Science". It is not clear for people getting to know "Debian
> Science". For those the document IMO is misleading.
People's perceptions are often different from reality. Changing
documents to avoid giving false impressions is useful, but doesn't
change the actual effect of the documentation, which is what I was
> > I think everyone is in violent agreement with this; what's left is
> > the relatively minor concern of a misleading document, which can
> > best be dealt with by submitting a patch to change the proposed
> > document, instead of the continuation of this thread on this
> > mailing list.
> This was IMO the best place for the topic.
Sure, but the problem has now been identified and agreed upon. Fixing
it is what is left. [I probably won't say anything more in this
thread, but if you actually want the proposal fixed, you should send
in a patch; otherwise, don't expect someone else to do it.]
> > I, for one, am glad that people in the debian-science alioth
> > project are taking steps to adopt a consitent policy for the
> > packages that they happen to maintain as a group.
> To be honest: debian-science is probably the worst place for
> recommendations of packaging tools over other packaging tools,
> because here you will probably find the largest variety of workflows
> in the whole area of places, where scientific software packaging is
Different people have different workflows, but a team working on a set
of packages often requires a consistent set of workflows if only to
avoid introducing conflict. It's not as if creating alioth projects
was particularly difficult, even for maintaining a single package.
1: Some would argue that they're always different, but that's a bit
A Bill of Rights that means what the majority wants it to mean is worthless.
-- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia