Am Montag, den 26.01.2009, 21:47 +0100 schrieb Manuel Prinz: > Am Montag, den 26.01.2009, 18:50 +0100 schrieb Daniel Leidert: > > This is *not* the policy of Debian Science! > > You're right. It's a draft and a recommendation, and it states that. > > > Being part of Debian Science just requires to care about scientific > > packages or related goals. It will (and must) *never* require to > > follow any packaging policy except the Debian policy and it also must > > not require to join Alioth! > > I do not know the original thread but I highly doubt that anyone has > said that.
The thread is in pkg-scicomp-devel and it was not promoted as draft. > Debian Science as a project/blend currently offers a space > for packages to reside in a public repository, currently hosted on > Alioth. Do you mean: debian-science.alioth.d.o == "Debian Science"? Are you kidding me? Please get serious. It is maybe a place to pickup packages/developers not fitting into existing groups or don't wanting to join existing groups. It is not "Debian Science". It is a small packaging repository - one out of several. > Of course there is no need to put stuff on Alioth but one can do > so if (s)he desires to do so. Some people did already and I do not see > why they should be wrong in doing so. You e.g. state a requirement to join Alioth to join "Debian Science". That is simply bullshit. Whoever contributes to the pool of packages doesn't need to join anything. [.] > Noone ever drove any efforts to destroy existing teams or whatever you > seem to imply here. Packaging under the Debian Science scope is a > possibility to add scientific packages if no appropriate subgroup exists > or the packager is not aware of. Exactly. debian-science.alioth.d.o != "Debian Science". > If it's better suited to some other > team, so be it. But it does not mean that putting packages under Debian > Science is nonsense. It is nonsense to mix local preferences/requirements with the global scope of the Debian Science Policy. > Also, noone dictated a policy. There was (and is) a draft and > recommendation which some people follow, others don't. It's not dictated > or enforced in any way. It mostly contains recommendations, so stating > that tools are enforced is exaggeration. It's a policy like a lot of > other subgroups, such as Debian Med, have. The document doesn't title itself as a packaging guideline only applicable to debian-science.alioth.d.o. So your claim, that it can be compared to the debian-med policy is wrong. > We wrote something up, we > made it publically available for discussion, Can you please point me to the RFC? The time I missed to answer, it was IIRC promoted as "Debian Science Policy", not as a draft for discussion. > and included all feedback > we got. Since you declined to provide one, you're not really in the > position to question the result. LOL. This is exactly the arrogance, rudeness and the offending style I found in the so called "policy". I think, that my work gives me enough reputation and right to question the result. > Stating "It's all crap anyway" is not > constructive feedback, IMNSHO, and unfortunately, that is how I read > your email. I did never state "its *all* crap". I stated, that your local applicable preferences and requirements are crap inside this document. Retitle it or remove those parts. > > And: *If* we (all the teams and maintainers) ever agree on > > one mailing list, then it will definitely not be an Alioth list. > > debian-science exists. > > Debian-science@ has mainly been a user list and there was discussion > about moving maintaining-related issues to a different list to not > bother users on debian-science. Can you please point me to the discussion? Why does the list description doesn't reflect, that this is considered a "user list"? Why are still most topics related to packaging and to coordinate where to put packages? I'm curious about your statement. [..] > > Stop announcing your very own and personal packaging policy as the > > "Debian Science Policy". I'm not amused and some kind of pissed off. > > I'm not exactly sure with what your anger is but I doubt it is a > document. It is. Believe it or not. > Your tone does not help the people interested in driving this > blend forward in any way, and Sylvestre is surely one of them and has > nothing but the best intentions. I never said anything about your or Sylvestres intention. But e.g. recommendations of tools imply an intention. Not? > I would really appreciate it if you get > back here when you calmed down and we can have a fruitful discussion. And again the same arrogance as above. I suggest you think about what I wrote, instead to teach me, if and when I'm allowed to come back or comment on something. [..] > As already stated, it was not in anyone's intent to establish personal > packaging practices as a global policy. You've put your personal packaging preferences in a document titled with "Debian Science Policy". Fact. Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
