Re: [Hampshire] Re: Application installers

Vic wrote:
>> I haven't used pure Debian for a while, but I am glad Debian is there,
>> doing what it does and sticking to its guns. The notion of a world
>> governed solely by market forces troubles me deeply - I want music that
>> never makes the chart, art that offends and free software that cares
>> about odd architectures and quality, and not about what Microsoft say.
>>
>
> Yes, that's all well and good - but this isn't about an assault on
> Freedom, this isn't anyone trying to sneak anything past anyone, this
> isn't about anyone trying to do anything unethical.
>
> This whole thread is just about trying to deal with the Debian package
> builder tools, and some rather arbitrary rules they enforce.
>
>
>> The notion of Debian bending the rules for every software developer
>> wanting to include their software in the distro certainly is an
>> intriguing one!
>>
>
> But no-one's asking for that - despite what some of the more vitriolic
> posters would have you believe.
>
> I'm simply trying to deal with some rules that make no sense at all to me.
> And the result is that I will be able to supply far more assistance to
> those who don't use Debian - simply because the Debian Policy Manual makes
> it difficult for me to be as helpful as I would like to be.

Fair point Vic, it sounds like you've given it a good go and if you are
up against a brick wall , in which case it is decision time:

(1) change the rules that are blocking progress
(2) leave Debian users to find their own way with your software

As for the thread not being an assault in freedom, I agree with you for
the most part, but when emotive statements about sending kids down pits
and nailing people to crosses start to creep in, along with comments
about essential business models for survival (Stephen's words, not yours
admittedly) then I think we are moving away from the nitty-gritty of
this thread and into other areas.

Microsoft and Red Hat, among others, do have to do things a certain way
to ensure their continued existence. Debian does not have to follow
those rules; Debian can continue to be Debian for as long as there are
volunteers out there prepared to make it happen, or until it is decided
to move in a different direction. If that doesn't suit the way you guys
work then by all means change it via the processes that are doubtless in
place to facilitate that, or alternatively leave it behind for the
evolutionary loser you believe it to be, and develop for the winners
instead.

That's not a dig or a barbed comment, but common sense to my way of
thinking. In your ideal world I guess the Debian guys would look at your
suggestions, realise the error of their ways and amend the rules to
accommodate your packaging requirements. We know that is unlikely to
happen in a time-scale that suits this development effort, if at all, so
the choices are simplified somewhat, unless this thread divulges an
alternative that we have all missed hitherto. Let's hope it does!

Sean