Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I doubt this.
The code is definitely not what I call complex. The tetex-bin package is, but not that particular piece of code, once isolated. > Additionally, this is a huge waste of maintainer time. Code like this > _BELONGS_ into a standardized tool. Following your course of > argumentation, why not have debhelper removed from the archive? You're resorting to hyperbole and putting words in my mouth (sorry, don't know how to express that well in english). Of course a standard tool for doing that would be nice, but there is no such tool now, as it seems. Now, ask yourself: when debhelper didn't exist, did people refuse to make packages because "there ought to be a standard easy-to-use tool for doing all these little things"? As Manoj explained you, a standard tool won't magically pop up if everyone is passively waiting for it. > I still feel that the right place to do this is the tool that claims > to be able to replace dpkg conffile (sic!) handling, ucf. This "sic" has nothing to do here. ucf indeed performs a comparable task as dpkg's conffile handling. Remember: dpkg does _nothing_ particular for configuration files that are not conffiles. The particular handling that ucf is trying to replace is therefore aptly named "dpkg's conffile handling". -- Florent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
