On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:17:40AM +0000, Thomas Kluyver wrote: > I have been keeping an eye on pkgme, but I'm not sure it solves the > problem. My concern with automated tools is that they tend to to work for > about 75% of stuff, but there's always a substantial proportion of things > that just do something a little bit odd, and the automatic tool can't > handle them. Of course. That's still applicable to your collection of GUI wizards.
> But neither can handle enough real-world cases that new packagers can > use it without thinking about what's happening. "Packaging without thinking about what's happening" is bad. It's good to have tools that do the right thing without you intervening (like debhelper). It's good to have tools that generate some configs/instructions based on analysis of sources and/or user input (needed when the first kind of tools doesn't work). In most cases packaging can be done with a combination of those and probably some small manual work, but I don't see how some big non-flexible GUI app can help users get a working package without doing manual checks and fixes. Bottom line: if you want to get a good package, it's not always possible to fully automate that, especially in cases of complex (and proprietary) software like that you mentioned, and so a GUI wizard can't do everything needed. -- WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
