On Feb 24 2016, Carl Chenet <cha...@debian.org> wrote:
> - First please Nikolau, spare me the "I don't believe Debian developers
> blablabla", this try to patronize me is offending. Don't like the script
> and you think it should not be in Debian or even exist? Fine, let's
> discuss about it.
[..]
> - I'm really aware it is a simple script, but I was not aware that the
> "simple is beautiful" motto was dead. 47 lines so? You want to refuse
> any program with line numbers <= bigvalue? That's a weird argument.
>
> - The script makes the job for me. It is simple, dead simple and suits a
> usecase , my use case, and, moreover, it is a really early release.
> Buggy? It's not perfect, It does not pretend to. But it will improve, as
> any other free software project.
Alright. In your opinion, what should be the standard for getting
something packaged into Debian?
I think it's hard to draw a line, but it's not hard to see that
ftpbackup is on the wrong side of it.
There is no minimum number of lines of code in a package, but that
doesn't mean that any 47 line script needs to be packaged. There is no
requirement for packages to be bug-free, but that doesn't mean that
quality is not a criterion.
The fact that the script does the job *for you*, and is indeed *dead
simple* are actually arguments *against* packaging it. Your private
script doesn't need to be in Debian, nor we need something that is
dead-simple yet still extremely fragile (you will not even get a
notification if some files couldn't be backed up).
So please, Carl and ftpmasters, don't put this into Debian.
Best,
-Nikolaus
--
GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F
Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F
»Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«
