On 24/02/2016 18:49, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > On Feb 24 2016, Carl Chenet <cha...@debian.org> wrote: >> - First please Nikolau, spare me the "I don't believe Debian developers >> blablabla", this try to patronize me is offending. Don't like the script >> and you think it should not be in Debian or even exist? Fine, let's >> discuss about it. > [..] >> - I'm really aware it is a simple script, but I was not aware that the >> "simple is beautiful" motto was dead. 47 lines so? You want to refuse >> any program with line numbers <= bigvalue? That's a weird argument. >> >> - The script makes the job for me. It is simple, dead simple and suits a >> usecase , my use case, and, moreover, it is a really early release. >> Buggy? It's not perfect, It does not pretend to. But it will improve, as >> any other free software project. > > Alright. In your opinion, what should be the standard for getting > something packaged into Debian? > > I think it's hard to draw a line, but it's not hard to see that > ftpbackup is on the wrong side of it. > > There is no minimum number of lines of code in a package, but that > doesn't mean that any 47 line script needs to be packaged. There is no > requirement for packages to be bug-free, but that doesn't mean that > quality is not a criterion. > > The fact that the script does the job *for you*, and is indeed *dead > simple* are actually arguments *against* packaging it. Your private > script doesn't need to be in Debian, nor we need something that is > dead-simple yet still extremely fragile (you will not even get a > notification if some files couldn't be backed up). > > So please, Carl and ftpmasters, don't put this into Debian.
Hi, Following this discussion on debian-devel, I realize the program is not ready to integrate Debian and so I requested ftpmasters to remove it from the archive. Thanks for the feedbacks to all participants, -- Carl Chenet