The package as is silently replaces file /usr/bin/parallel of package
moreutils, so it is not suitable for upload yet.
There has been a discussion in debian-ment...@lists.debian.org with Joey
Hess, the maintainer of the moreutils package, between 11th and 14th of
April, after my initial RFS, which has not concluded yet in its
entirety, but shows that either:
a. A use of the alternatives mechanism will be possible with the next
(March or maybe newer) release of gnu parallel and having --tollef as
the default configuration to be switch compatible with the moreutils'
one.
I will explore this possibility next month, since currently I am doing
some work for the bastille package (first two steps of RFH #592137).
b. The two utilities will not be possible to be made compatible, in
which case a diversion can be added to the parallel package for the
offending /usr/bin/parallel path and possibly a Breaks clause in the
control file for the packages that J.Hess stated that are in incoming
and use moreutils' parallel (when they appear in the archive).
I will also explore this possibility in parallel with the first and
depending on the outcome I may come up with yet another flavor of the
package, so that they will be both available to choose.
c. There is of course the possibility to just rename the newcomer
parallel to something else and get done with it, but I am reluctant to
do so because the existing utility has less features from the other one,
and has not seen much development from the July of 2009, apart from the
patches of J.Hess for about a year after the last merge from the
original author's repo, that is until about a year ago; cf.:
http://git.kitenet.net/?p=moreutils.git;a=history;f=parallel.c;h=d283b96101fbc89ef214436bab316cf1092536f9;hb=c27365c4f2a7e42841aef3f53b9316b4aaab730a
).
This is essentially acknowledged at bug #597050, since it remains open.
On contrast gnu parallel releases at about monthly intervals, adding new
features in every release. Clearly the momentum at this period is at the
newcomer and where there is momentum there is also benefit for the
users of Debian.
I am however equally reluctant to accept the view of the original
submitter of bug #597050, that moreutil's parallel should be retired.
Its main feature is that it is C code, thus less dependencies (which is
useful in certain environments) and possibly more speed; though the
later may be not significant apart from the startup time. I am not in a
state at this moment to make a detailed in-depth comparison between the
two, but in any case that a piece of software may today lag in features
compared to another one, it is clearly conceivable that it can acquire
more if someone has the time to fiddle with the source.
All of these of course need to be weighted. To end here, it is good to
have alternatives when there are multiple offers. And from the user
point of view it is good to not have to remember many names. So, I will
pursue the alternative root since it seems the fairest given the state
of the current offers, it allows potential for development to both
sides, it gives Debian users the right to choose and also gives room for
other candidates to appear -if ever- to fill the gaps between the
available implementations.
I would like your opinions though, and your experience as a guide,
because while the package is very easy to prepare in isolation, since
upstream source is well-formed, its interactions with other parts of the
Debian archive, raise it above what could be called the
entry-level-to-packaging category.
regards
George Zarkadas
Στις 12-05-2011, ημέρα Πεμ, και ώρα 11:46 +0100, ο/η Hector Oron έγραψε:
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 02:22:06PM +0200, George Zarkadas wrote:
Στις 07-03-2011, ημέρα Δευ, και ώρα 22:24 -0800, ο/η Noah Meyerhans
έγραψε:
Hi George. I'm interested in GNU parallel and am willing to sponsor and
potentially co-maintain your packages. I'll try to review them within
the next couple of days. Let me know if somebody takes care of them
before me.
I will be happy to have you as a sponsor. I didn't sent the RFS; you can
schedule your review with more elasticity :). I will also need a few
days to work with git integration and convert patches to use the DEP-3
format.
Would it be possible to upload this package?
(It needs to update standards version)
Samuel, what do you think?
Best regards,
signature.asc
Description: Αυτό το σημείο του μηνύματος είναι ψηφιακά υπογεγραμμένο
