Re: Standardization, large scale changes, innovations
Raphael Hertzog, 2010-03-25 11:22:36 +0100 :
> 1/ Do you believe that it's a good move to standardize our packaging tools?
> (example: debhelper is almost standard, quilt is gaining status of the
> standard patch system thanks to the new source format)
Please define “standardize” here. For the benefit of the candidates,
let me say that if the meaning is “be allowed to shout at dissidents”,
then in this case I don't believe it is a good move.
> 4/ Organizing changes that have an impact on (a large part of|all) the
> archive is very difficult:
> - you always have people that do not like the new thing and
> will try to make you feel miserable
Fair's fair, you are also making them feel miserable.
> - you have lots of people not caring (for various reasons, not reading
> d-d-a or forgetting quickly, not willing to change something that
> works unless they are prodded, etc.)
Unless there is a real benefit. Standardization for its own sake is
*not* a real benefit. Please accept that there are cases where the v3
format brings absolutely nothing. Not to the packaging, not to the
maintainer, and not to potential helpers because there are none. Case
in point: the sourceforge/gforge/fusionforge package is coming close to
nine years of existence, with zero NMU in the meantime, zero people
working on the package on the Ubuntu side, and zero people complaining
that adding a patch to their private copy is too hard. Where would be
the advantage of switching to v3?
Neko-no me-to, onna-gokoro-to, aki-no-sora. -- Proverbe japonais
(« Souvent femme varie, bien fol est qui s'y fie. »)