First, thank you very much for your reply. Indeed, even if I do not write English fluently, I could have read it again before posting. I now see my horrible mistakes, and I beg your pardon.
Yes, this is a one more tool like ansible/chef/ puppet/propellor/… The fact that there are still so many similar tools today may mean that there is a big need, but that there is no simple and modular solution to outperform others. I'm not claiming that kt-update can do it, at best it could be used as a module by these big platforms. I developed it because I did not find any simple solution to this simple problem: manage the list of expected packages on each of our machines. Second, I don't like to fork, and I don't want to fork. I like to contribute and I want to contribute. I don't think I forked cron-apt since I rewrote it more than 90%, giving it functionality far beyond its original objective. The conversation I had with Ola Lundqvist was pleasant, and he admitted that he "can (almost?) not recognize any code that" he "have written", but only a few lines from him and Marc Haber. I wanted to do well. If you prefer to keep track (homeopathic?) Of the other authors, I completely agree. I think I am a fairly discreet person, who values ideas more than the people who carry them. I would like the ideas/features brought by kt-update to be available upstream. I don't care which names can be associated with it. I would prefer mine not to be there, but you have to assume and expose yourself a minimum to be contacted to advance ideas. Finally, I am also very bad at "marketing". And making this tool available upstream, even if it allows people to easily switch from a Debian configuration to a Gaussian configuration (or vice versa), is absolutely not a priority for my company (which could "market" it). I'm glad I got an answer from you, an apt developer, and sad that you don't want to sponsor the stuff. Could you change your mind? Could anyone else be interested in having a simple implementation of these features in Debian? Best regards & Happy new year everyone ! --- Jean-Jacques Brucker Le Mon, 30 Dec 2019 15:32:45 +0100, David Kalnischkies <da...@kalnischkies.de> a écrit : > Hi, > > On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 11:51:53AM +0100, Jean Jacques BRUCKER wrote: > > What's next ? What did I do wrong ? May someone with super powers > > consider this package, and tells me if it can be integrated > > upstream > > First of all: I am likely the wrong person to reply to this mail. > Second: Reading someone say bad stuff about your "baby" is hard, but > try to not get defensive – it is not an attack! > > > "lightweight distribution management" – so that is some tool to be > used by the release team of a distribution? No, it isn't, but even > though I am an APT developer, I have no idea what it does. > > I /think/ based on the snippets I read that it is an apt wrapper > script to help in creating package installation profiles and to keep > machines following/switching between these profiles. Sort of like > ansible/chef/ puppet/propellor/… but for packages only – but I am not > sure and I got that impression mostly from your reply to Paul who was > also asking what this thing does although in a less blunt way than I > am now. > > Every other sentence I read has at least one typo in it – and I say > that as a non-native English speaker who is an expert in producing a > lot of mistakes in his writing. Ask your users for help! There is > also the debian-l10n-english@ mailinglist for the last few points of > excellence. Having "Contain a tool than enhance cron-apt and manage > an apt sources.list with some extensions." as the start of the long > description of a package is wrong on so many levels that I can't > enumerate them all. > > I mentioned already, I am APT developer, so I am super biased in this, > but stating even in the RFS that whatever kt-update does (still not > sure) should be done by apt, but you don't want to contribute to apt > and therefore forked (= not contributing to that one either) another > wrapper of apt is not instilling a lot of confidence in me. > > And I think you mean well, but what the heck means "AUTHORS files has > then been cleaned"? That sounds like you removed names from that file > which makes my stomach hurt as contributions by people never really > fully disappear (even if no line they wrote survives, the idea they > had might). > BUT even if that is all good and fine: That is one of the first > things you wanna tell a prospecting sponsor about your package? Not > about some killer feature, but about a dubiously clean text file? > > > So, long story short, this all heavily lacks a bit of quality in the > documentation or if you prefer "marketing" – completely ignoring what > it does on a technical level because nobody (at least not me) will > bother looking any closer. Finding a sponsor in this state might be > even harder than it usually is. > > > (And no, even if that package would be in tip-top shape, I am not > available for sponsoring it or in all likelihood for further reviews. > Supercow of 'apt moo' fame would be furious with me… 😉) > > > Best regards & Happy new year > > David Kalnischkies
pgpLXSEF8uuy3.pgp
Description: Signature digitale OpenPGP
