In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
I'm remarkably unopinionated about how we package sources, except that I'm
pretty happy with dpkg-source and so it seems reasonable to me to tweak the
things that need tweaking in dpkg-source, rather than do something radically
different.
However, you h
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jim Pick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I've just repackaged hello using my new proposed source packaging
> > scheme which does away with dpkg-source and uses just dpkg and
> > standard .deb files instead.
>
> Oh no! This sounds suspiciously like R
Jim Pick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've just repackaged hello using my new proposed source packaging
> scheme which does away with dpkg-source and uses just dpkg and
> standard .deb files instead.
Oh no! This sounds suspiciously like RedHat's method! I don't like
it one bit. Here's why:
> > But it needs lots of work.
> > Could you answer these questions on the future of dpkg-source for me:
> > 1) How do you propose modifying dpkg-source for handling additions
> > of binary files to Debian packages (without uuencoding them)?
>
> I don't know about Ian, but I suspect a relati
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
> And when people tell you technical points where your proposal is flawed,
> those are "knee-jerk reactions", "uninformed opinions", and "aesthetics"?
>
> Something is very wrong here.
My fault. I was a bit stressed, and didn't take criticism very we
Andreas Jellinghaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Please tell me where I am wrong.
>
> your create complexity where there is none.
> source handling works very fine for me, and i simply do not understand
> why you add this complexity, like managing sources as root.
1) I see much less comple
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Pick) wrote on 23.10.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Please tell me where I am wrong.
>
> In my head, at least, I haven't found a single flaw in my proposal.
> Maybe there is a flaw, and the point just hasn't been driven home
> to me yet.
>
> Most of the opposition appears to
> Please tell me where I am wrong.
your create complexity where there is none.
source handling works very fine for me, and i simply do not understand
why you add this complexity, like managing sources as root.
i only see the disadvantages.
so : please not show me example code, please show me a
From: Jim Pick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Most of the opposition appears to be based on the fact that I have
> violated some aesthetic
This is on target. There is indeed an aesthetic that is an important
part of software architecture. The best software is not simply
functional, but beautiful. Much that
From: Jim Pick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I've just repackaged hello using my new proposed source packaging
> scheme which does away with dpkg-source and uses just dpkg and
> standard .deb files instead.
Good try, but I think it falls short of the mark in a few ways.
Have you discussed this with Klee?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
> Good try, but I think it falls short of the mark in a few ways.
> Have you discussed this with Klee? He has ideas in the same direction.
Klee hasn't told me any detail about what he plans on doing, unfortunately.
The whole complete concept only came to
Jim, it's a clever hack for a morning's work. I don't think it's more than
a mock-up of a real tool to do the job, though. I think we should take the
ideas you've generated and put lots more time and thought into a clean and
elegant design for automated building. I think packaging is just a little
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
> > I don't think that Debian stuff should go upstream.
>
> Do you offer any justification for that? I think it's a really nice feature
> when Debian stuff is built into a software package and no diff is necessary.
Have you used automake? It does a prett
Without arguing any more, I think it's fair to say that I'd want to
look really hard at some alternatives before the project chooses a
source package format. I'd be listening to Ian Jackson's opinion,
since Ian is the author of dpkg and now has time for the project again.
I'd give a lot of weight t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
> Without arguing any more, I think it's fair to say that I'd want to
> look really hard at some alternatives before the project chooses a
> source package format. I'd be listening to Ian Jackson's opinion,
> since Ian is the author of dpkg and now has time
From: Jim Pick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Funny that there has been so much negative reaction -- and nobody has
> even bothered to download the samples I put up yet.
I'm sorry, but your technical description was more than sufficient :-)
Since you insisted that I download your package, I have done so. I
I was flabbergasted last night when I saw that Jim had answered my
14-point `why-not' list point by point. That message was intended to
terminate the discussion, not start one.
I've read Jim's writings on this subject and he is completely wrong.
I really have better things to do with my time than
Hi,
>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian> I was flabbergasted last night when I saw that Jim had answered
Ian> my 14-point `why-not' list point by point. That message was
Ian> intended to terminate the discussion, not start one.
How very patronizing. You decided that th
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was flabbergasted last night when I saw that Jim had answered my
> 14-point `why-not' list point by point. That message was intended to
> terminate the discussion, not start one.
Sorry. Maybe it would have had more effect on me if I read it before
I h
(Oops, I sent this to debian-devel by mistake. I think it belongs on
debian-policy, so I'm sending it here now.)
Majoj (SuperCite undone):
> [Ian Jackson:]
> > I was flabbergasted last night when I saw that Jim had answered
> > my 14-point `why-not' list point by point. That message was
> > inte
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Pick) wrote on 22.10.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Funny that there has been so much negative reaction -- and nobody has
> even bothered to download the samples I put up yet. Most of the debate
> so far has just been a knee-jerk reaction to somebody trying to shake
> up the
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Er.. you've not allowed much time for people to comment. I don't think
> it's fair to be disappointed.
I know, I'm sorry. It was a long day yesterday, and I got somewhat
flustered by some of the reaction I got (to several things).
I apologize for the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 23.10.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian>> I was flabbergasted last night when I saw that Jim had answered
Ian>> my 14-point `why-not' list point by point. That message was
Ian>> intended to terminate
Jim Pick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Funny that there has been so much negative reaction -- and nobody has
> even bothered to download the samples I put up yet. Most of the debate
> so far has just been a knee-jerk reaction to somebody trying to shake
> up the status quo. I'm quite disappointed
24 matches
Mail list logo
