Sam Hartman dixit:
>He doesn't actually make that argument.
Hmm. Right, he doesn’t spell it out, but I got the impression.
Perhaps my reading was wrong.
>There are several reasons for not using dh we've already identified.
Sure… but…
>The fun factor is important.
… that.
>My reading of the community consensus is that the points you bring up
>have been consider by the community.
>You did not bring up new issues.
This is diametral opposite to:
>my reading is that the community believes that the fun factor of more
>uniformity when dealing with a lot of packages justifies the restriction
>of maintainer preference when there's not a sufficient justification for
>a tool other than dh.
No. A maintainer normally deals with their own packages, or with
.dsc and debdiff, for NMU. (This is also an answer to the reply
from wrar. Oh, jonas also said so, reloading the list index page.)
Yes, some must learn those ways, but I don’t mind; that doesn’t
mean I’m more comfortable in dh7. Usually I’m not except for
extremely simple packages, or, partially, really new packages.
>You're absolutely right that there is a tradeoff here.
>And I think that Debian of 10 or 15 years ago would have evaluated the
>tradeoff between the needs of a single maintainer and the needs of
>people doing work across a lot of packages differently.
Is “the Debian of today” the *Debian* of today, or just a couple of
very involved people?
Do you consider all those people who just take care of their own
package, or couple of packages, in what little spare time they have?
I doubt those very involved people, with hundreds of packages in their
DDPO already (don’t laugh, I saw that), could shoulder the burden, were
those others to leave disgruntled by things being forced onto them.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
„Cool, /usr/share/doc/mksh/examples/uhr.gz ist ja ein Grund,
mksh auf jedem System zu installieren.“
-- XTaran auf der OpenRheinRuhr, ganz begeistert
(EN: “[…]uhr.gz is a reason to install mksh on every system.”)
