On Friday 06 May 2011 20:30:32 Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote: > On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 20:03 +0300, George Danchev wrote: > > On Friday 06 May 2011 19:39:26 Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote: > > > On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 13:24 -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote: > > > > On 05/06/2011 12:14 PM, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote: > > > > > Q: How many content management systems written in php does Debian > > > > > need? A: How about zero? > > > > > > > > > > Not exactly helpful. > > > > > > > > When developers are passionately opposed to a particular technology > > > > (and not without reason here, I think,) they can be a bit blunt in > > > > expressing it. The list of these goes on and on ... and while I > > > > certainly would be more polite myself about expressing reservations > > > > about adding any more, I'm not going to fault others for expressing > > > > their dissent. The way you expressed your support seemed to me to > > > > gloss over the real cost of adding a new package to the archive > > > > without any coherent argument as to why this particular one was > > > > going to be no trouble at all (and/or worth the trouble because it's > > > > so special). > > > > > > Strange that you read 'support' into my responses. Actually I have > > > never even heard of the proposed package, but that's not the point. I > > > even mentioned that if the package sucketh (if the guy proposing it > > > proves unreliable), then it can either remain in Unstable or be > > > removed. > > > > Upload to 'unstable' and see how it goes could be quite suboptimal > > tactics most of the time. I'm not talking about that particular package, > > but not every package which flies in the free software skies deserves to > > be in Debian archive in my own opinion. Inclusions costs human time. > > I am not opposed to this. But again, that was not the point. Point was > automatic 'should not be in Debian' without giving reasons. And if > maintainer is willing to be on top of things, what extra work is there > for anyone, except those handling NEW? > > > > You don't just blatantly oppose Debian inclusion without mentioning > > > why. The great Josselin Mouette (yes, I really respect this guy for > > > his tireless GNOME maintenance) just did that, and the rest of us are > > > supposed to magically possess the history of PHP in Debian, and laugh > > > it off. > > > > > > And no, you should fault others for expressing their dissent in this > > > unproductive manner. > > > > Well, maybe if you look at that from a different angle, you can find it > > productive as in: don't spend your time packaging that particular one, as > > chances are very low for upload. > > I don't understand what you are saying here. My point was the manner in > which the response was made. I used the word 'productive' because the > guy wasn't saying why he was objecting to this particular package.
Here are some points to consider: * responsible for the uploads and overall package quality is the one whose key is in debian-keyring and who actually uploads the package, obviously. * writing a meaningful ITP helps to grab attention, especially if there are multiple alternatives. Prove your point (ref: I'm upstream and I want to maintain it, doesn't magically buy you a slot into the archive) * writing lengthy rebuttals for well known facts from the past are quite unlikely, people has more important things to do. * recognize the fact when someone says that chances are high you are about to be wasting your own time packaging $something. If someone capable uploads it since it is found to be useful for whatever reason that's fine, which is unlikely imo, otherwise it is a waste of human time. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201105062146.40571.danc...@spnet.net