Re: [Hampshire] Re:Application installers

>> It's all very well digging your heels in and refusing to play with
>> others until they follow your rules - but if you do, they'll go
>> play somewhere else.
>
> so what!

So it's up to you whether you want to give yourself a "Free or nothing"
stance - but do you consider the distribution sill Free if you forcibly
apply those rules to everyone else as well?

> I run Debian __because__ it has ethics and rules and is pretty serious
> about developers/maintainers sticking to those rules.

I run Linux for exactly the same reason - but why do you feel that it is
unethical to have closed-source applications? Of course we'd all prefer it
if all apps were open - but they're not.

> Debian has been
> successfully using these rules for quite a few years and it is not
> their fault if you find it difficult to work with those rules.

I don't find it difficult to work with those rules - that isn't what the
thread is about. I find it difficult to work within the Policy Manual that
requires certain naming conventions which force me to obfuscate the true
nature of upstream code I use. I find it difficult to work with a Policy
Manual that requires my documentation to be compressed because I have the
gall to allow it to exceed 4KB. These are not rules based on current
technical requirents, they are arbitrary.

> If you want to provide packages serious Debian users will be
> happy with then work with the rules and stop trying to find ways to
> get round them.

I *am* working within the rules. Those rules have caused me a certain
amount of grief - but the only thing they've actually *stopped* me from
doing is providing a Debian source package for one of the libraries I use.
So you Deb guys will have to handle the source without packaging.

> I am not a hardcore Debian user who will only install purely free
> software, I use Opera and Acroread for example

Ah, so the tirade wasn't really founded on much then, was it?

> but normally I only
> install packages from trusted Debian repositories,

That's your choice. Would you rather I just told people to download a
series of .debs & figure oput the dependencies themselves? I thought I was
helping out by creating repo metadata - but if you don't want it, don't
use it.

> Installing vfxforthalpha was done to 'add to the numbers' of
> downloaders but given your attitude to the way Debian works

What *are* you talking about?

I've raised issues in this thread about the way Debian packaging works -
not because I'm trying to kick off a power struggle / disparage the great
Debian gods / liberate a Middle-Eastern country / make jiggy with Yo Mama,
but simply because I perceive there to be problems with the tools
currently available. Perhaps that's just my outlook; I'm sure you can
explain to me why a file specifically lited in the .dsc will be ignored,
skimply because the base of its filename doesn't match that of the other
files mentioned in the .dsc. That would make *so* much sense.

> it
> will be removed and I'll not be installing the beta or any other
> vfxforth package. I know you won't miss me and don't care.

Who am I to argue with you there, John. Boom Shanka, as they say on the
young Ones.

Vic.