Hi, Ben, على الثلاثاء 27 كانون الأول 2016 20:31، كتب Ben Finney: > Howdy all, > > I recently donned the mantle of maintaining ‘dput’ and am carefully > making improvements. I am conscious of the special need for backward > compatibility so I am taking care to understand how the Debian developer > community uses it today. >
Many thanks for soliciting users' perspectives. I think this isn't done as often as it should be, so I very much appreciate it. > So I'm now familiar enough, but still fresh enough, that feedback from > people with different experiences is particularly valuable. > > > What does ‘dput’ do that you think really should not be changed? > > What does ‘dput’ do that you wish it would stop doing? > > What do other tools do better than ‘dput’? Do you think that ‘dput’ > should change to do those tasks the same way? > > > The same questions can be asked of the ‘dcut’ program from the same > package. > > The ‘dput-ng’ package is one alternative that is sometimes suggested > when people hit the limits in ‘dput’. I am not a user of ‘dput-ng’ or > other alternatives, so am also seeking feedback from people who have > informed positions on choosing one over the other. > I always have to use dput-ng in order to be able to use the dcut dm command and grant DMs upload permissions. That works well, but the dput command from dput-ng does some spurious checks that fail and I've never found worth the time to investigate. What I end up doing (since it doesn't happen very frequently) is switching back to plain dput, which simply does the job. If I ever have to grant upload permissions, I install dput-ng, do the dcut dm, then install plain dput again. So as far as I'm concerned, if the dput package had a dcut that supports the dm subcommand, I'd be very happy. Thanks and regards Afif -- Afif Elghraoui | عفيف الغراوي http://afif.ghraoui.name
