On Tuesday, May 20, 2025 7:15:19 AM Mountain Standard Time Roland Mas wrote: > I've read all the feedback on this ITP, and will take it into account, > including the renaming part. I'm uncomfortable with withdrawing it > altogether, but I propose to sit on it for a few weeks, at least long > enough to make the tool good enough to add real value to the archive. > Then I'll restart a discussion on -devel, and if the consensus then is > that gwh has no place in Debian I'll withdraw the ITP. > > How does that sound?
As someone who is one of the most vocal supporters of standardizing how we package things, I would like to say that I always worry when someone says, “Don’t package this new thing. The things we have are already good enough.” I worry that attitude hinders progress, mostly because it is hard to tell which things will end up being really useful over time. There are a number of teams that have already packaged scripts and wrappers that are useful for particular packaging workflows. An example is pkg-kde- tools, which includes pkgkde-symbolshelper. This ends up being crazy useful when dealing with symbols files, so much that I (and other people) use it for any package, not just KDE ones. https://qt-kde-team.pages.debian.net/symbolfiles.html I would be very sad if this hadn’t been packaged because someone said there shouldn’t be any more wrappers. -- Soren Stoutner so...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
