Re: Bug#445866: ITP: perforce -- closed source revision control system - Debian

This is a discussion on Re: Bug#445866: ITP: perforce -- closed source revision control system - Debian ; On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 03:41:21PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > Given the great abundance of revision control systems already packaged > for Debian, what is the point of adding another? Especially when it is > non-free. Firstly, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Re: Bug#445866: ITP: perforce -- closed source revision control system

  1. Re: Bug#445866: ITP: perforce -- closed source revision control system

    On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 03:41:21PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
    > Given the great abundance of revision control systems already packaged
    > for Debian, what is the point of adding another? Especially when it is
    > non-free.


    Firstly, as it is non-free, it isn't really going "into Debian".
    Secondly, if someone wants to package it, and other people use it, why
    shouldn't it?

    It seems every other semi-controversial ITP gets an obligatory "why
    package this when we have X,Y,Z instead?" reply, although seemingly
    never from an ftp-master or mirror maintainer or anyone else who is
    actually impacted by archive sizes :-(

    --
    Jon Dowland


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  2. Re: Bug#445866: ITP: perforce -- closed source revision control system

    Le jeudi 11 octobre 2007 à 15:01 +0100, Jon Dowland a écrit :
    > It seems every other semi-controversial ITP gets an obligatory "why
    > package this when we have X,Y,Z instead?" reply, although seemingly
    > never from an ftp-master or mirror maintainer or anyone else who is
    > actually impacted by archive sizes :-(


    Archive size not so much a concern as archive *quality*. There is
    trouble maintaining the quality level reasonable for each packages when
    there are so many packages.

    --
    .''`.
    : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
    `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
    `- our own. Resistance is futile.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQBHDlUCrSla4ddfhTMRAo6TAKDp2IFZFHl2I2z5/FL3n24gF/5+eACfRC5X
    RKbkoWrFG2+PIvhYCR8+Bao=
    =Tx9T
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  3. Re: Bug#445866: ITP: perforce -- closed source revision control system

    Jon Dowland writes:

    > It seems every other semi-controversial ITP gets an obligatory "why
    > package this when we have X,Y,Z instead?" reply, although seemingly
    > never from an ftp-master or mirror maintainer or anyone else who is
    > actually impacted by archive sizes :-(


    Consider it an expression of increasing resistance designed to make people
    think twice. I think it's useful even when not enforced. If one is
    convinced that the package is needed, one can always go ahead anyway, but
    the resistance provides useful feedback and sometimes identifies packages
    that are really unnecessary for reasons that the prospective packager
    didn't realize.

    --
    Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

+ Reply to Thread