Hi, NB: <bug-id>@bugs.debian.org only mails the maintainer, not the submitter. <bug-id>-submitter@ mails both.
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007, Brian Ramos wrote: > A few > years ago I decided I wanted to learn how to use the new (in 2.4) > subprocess module. [...] > but the purpose of the > module was not to create a serious module to do GUIs in python, it was > to experiment with subprocess. [...] Point a) One motivation was your own (to experiment with subprocess); Debian has obviously nothing to do with this. > So, yes PyZenity is crack. The "right" way to do it is to certainly > use PyGtk, which I do in my own programs Point b) You agree that PyZenity is crack and not the right way to do things properly. > Siegfried-Angel found it useful to some degree and decided he wanted > to make a deb package for it, which is great. Point c) Siegfried-Angel finds it useful, and you claim other people do find it useful as well. > Do I think it should be > included in Debian? Probably not. Point d) You don't think it should be included in Debian. Summarizing, the only motivation to keep pyzenity is convenience, but at the same time we would acknowledge that relying on pyzenity is the improper way to do things. I can imagine local scripts could use pyzenity, but there's no plan to have any Debian package depend on it. I would recommend hosting pyzenity packges outside of Debian or in an unofficial repository; I hope you understand why I'm unhappy that Debian would have to maintain and would advertize software which you and me consider the improper way to do things. I'd like to hear from the Maintainer and/or sponsor. Cc:ing Bernd. If they agree that pyzenity is best kept out of Debian, I'll file a removal request. Bye, -- Loïc Minier
