Sandro Tosi <mo...@debian.org> wrote:

>On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 16:43, Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com>
>wrote:
>> I think it's deeply unfortunate that the pkgme authors chose
>duplicate
>> something for which there is already a reasonably complete solution
>rather
>> than focus on areas where that was not the case or improving the
>existing
>> solution.
>
>ehm, isn't this exactly the python-support/dh_python2 critics?

It's similar, but in that case there were two existing implementations, neither 
of which were fully satisfactory, nor were they likely to become so. A fresh 
implementation was necessary to break a technical and social logjam.

I recognize that not everyone shares this view (and I don't see a point in 
re-arguing it), but I think the similarity is only superficial.

Scott K

Reply via email to