Re: FreeLinux project

[Brian White <bcwhite@verisim.com>]

> > Personally I am not attracted to centralized source management schemes.
> > The approach is just too fascist for my tastes. Considering how many of
> > the complaints about the packaging system have to do with "constraints" on
> > what can and what can't go into a source file, I would be surprised if
> > additional controls can be made to work within an "open" development
> > model like the one used for Debian.
> 
> Hmmm. Every time I encounter a badly assembled Debian package
> (ucbmpeg being the latest, still apparently libc4 and old source format) I
> think, "Hell, this is sloppy, we need more rigour in the Debian project".
> I'm beginning to think that if being called fascist is the worst that'll
> happen, we should go for a far more rigid set of rules on what can and
> can't go onto the FTP site:

Perhaps there should be a standard way for other people to fix bugs
in packages.  Since using the old source format or libc4 counts as a
bug, you would be free to fix the package and upload a "correct"
version.


> a) if dpkg-source -x <foo> doesn't extract working, buildable source,
>    it doesn't qualify. This means no more old style tarfiles.

This is happening, though it does take time.


> b) if the source doesn't compile cleanly (preferably with -Wall &
>    -Werror where possible) it doesn't qualify.

There is no use in being this pedantic.  There are some cases where warnings
occur and cannot be easily avoided (most notably from source generated by
other programs or preprocessor macros).  I try to write code that compiles
without any warnings, but such is not always a reasonable possibility.


> c) if the package conffiles break some existing configuration without
>    at least checking and informing the administrator, it doesn't qualify.
>    Recently I lost all module support because of a broken package.

Not every case can be tested.  There will always be states that cause
problems and did not get detected before release.  Making general
statement like this is not that far from "must have no bugs".


> Quite honestly, some of the discussion on this list has really
> put me off the idea of Debian. It's getting to the point where
> I'd rather get the original sources down and integrate them into
> my system by hand, than rely on packages with broken dependencies,
> broken security bugs and broken configuration. What use is a logo
> if it doesn't work?

Are these problems using "unstable" or "stable"?  We're trying to do what
we can to minimize these problems for the official releases, but if you
decide to track the unstable release, then you cannot expect everything
to work perfectly all the time.


> Now, I know we're talking about free software here, but doesn't
> anyone have any pride in what they do anymore?

Actually, it's more the fact that it's volunteer work than the fact that
it is free.

And besides that, I find there is a lot more pride in volunteer work than
the work people do because they get paid.  Not everybody is this way, and
some people just don't have the years of experience that make for an expert
programmer, but I think the people here, in general, do a damn good job
on this system and should be commended.

                                          Brian
                                 ( bcwhite@verisim.com )

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      You can never be too good looking or too well equipped.  -- Dilbert


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-private-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .