* Stefano Zacchiroli [2011-03-10 18:48 +0100]: > The argument of maintenance burden is in general a valid one, but IME > maintenance burden in devscripts is more limited by the amount of > people who are interested in maintaining a specific (dev)script than > by the needed language knowledge. ... > > To conclude with an obvious argument, rewriting useful tools which are > known to work and which are currently maintained by a derived distro, > when they are already written in a popular language, doesn't seem to > be the smartest thing to do to me.
I agree with above arguments, but my conclusion is a different one than what you seem to imply in yours. James Vega seems to be the most active devscripts maintainer these days, and he does this (as far as I know) in his spare time. If he does not want to have python scripts in it, I see no justification to force him to do so. I also see no reason to try hard to convince him after he clearly stated his point of view. One way to have both, all members of the devscripts team keep their current vim in maintaining it, and not wasting the potential developer resources of these two DDs, could be the following: Package: devscripts Maintainer: Devscripts Devel Team Recommends: devscripts-python Package: devscripts-python Maintainer: Devscripts Python Devel Team Recommends: devscripts If including other languages in the new package would be planned, naming it devscripts-extra or similar instead could be helpful. An alternative to the above is to rename devscripts to devscripts-base or -core, name the new binary package devscripts and let it depend on devscripts-base. If the devscripts maintainers would change their mind in future, these packages could be merged. Regards Carsten -- 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/20110310191522.ga10...@furrball.stateful.de
