Hi, On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 11:31:27AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > Hi all, I'll reply as a (not very active) devscripts maintainer. > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 08:10:31PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: > > In my POV the ideal situation would be: > > - debian-goodies contains scripts which are useful for users and > > developers comparably > > - devscripts contains scripts mostly related to development > > - devscripts could depend on debian-goodies if it uses tools from it, > > but preferable not the other way round. > > I generally agree with this POV. Just to be a bit more precise and sure > we all agree with the principles: with "developer" here we mean "Debian > developer".
well, its "Debian and derivative developers" because devscripts contains tools that are used at least by Ubuntu developers as well ;) > Then, regarding mutual dependencies, I would say that debian-goodies > _must_ not have a dependency on devscripts: if the dependencies among > the two become mutual, than it would be pointless to have two different > packages in the first place. Thats a more precise form to say what I meant. Yep, I absolutely agree to it. Both the must not itself and the fact, that otherwise the different packages became pointless. > > We could create a joined team to maintain debian-goodies and devscripts, > > either in two repositories where each of the team members would have > > commit access or in one repository (probably even better ;). > > One of two repositories is a technical decision which is more related to > the actual VCS we use than to the decision about whether to join the > teams or not. (SCNR: we can move to git and have one repository for > devscripts and one for debian-goodies, owned by a common alioth group.) Agreed. BTW. I'm all in favour of moving to git with devscripts. But thats another topic. > > In the long run it would make sense to replace the crossings in > > debian-goodies with the tools which are similar with the tools > > from devscripts and in return remove them from devscripts (if the > > criterias above are met). > > Absolutely. > > > Just on a side note: I'm never sure if debian-goodies is a good name, > > because before I was told about it I never stumbled about it and for > > such a name I would never have searched. > > It's a historical name a bit hard to change now, but surely we can > transition to a better name if we find one. The best guess that comes to > my mind is "debianutils", but is already taken (by an Essential) package > ... how about debianutils-extra? Some other ideas: debian-tools, debian-helpers, ... I don't really like the idea to use a suffixed version of another packages name which is not at all related to what we would maintain. Just hoping that the current maintainer of debian-goodies will tell his opinion in a short. Regards, Patrick -- To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected].
