On Sun, Jan 07, 2024 at 02:23:32AM +0900, Simon Richter wrote:
> > Aren't all these problems just inherent in Debian's lack of a mandated
> > packaging tooling and workflow [1,2]?
>
> We have a mandated tooling and workflow.
>
> The tooling follows an interface that is defined in Policy. The interface is
> deliberately designed to be as flexible as possible. Most packages do not
> require this flexibility, which is why a majority use a library of helper
> functions that trades that flexibility for ease of use.
>
> This works because it is a solution that solves 95% of cases, and does not
> impose requirements on the remaining 5%. If you wanted 100% of packages to
> use this, and turn this into the new interface, then all these corner cases
> would need to be handled as well, and the interface extended.
>
> We also have a version control system -- the Debian archive. It, too, has a
> different focus than other version control systems, because it also includes
> a mirroring strategy.
>
> Switching to git would, again, require replication of the missing
> functionality, and it would require a lot of work to properly define all
> these interfaces and make sure they are extensible in the future.
This is, unironically, why we can't have nice things.
