Re: Moed Debian Jr. repository to Alioth

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Ben Armstrong wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:34:12 +0200 (CEST)
> Andreas Tille <[email protected]> wrote:
>> What are these reasons and how can I help to invalidate them?
>
> I'm not sure if you can.  Individual metapackages with individual release
> cycles has always worked well for me.

Why?

> Also, I'm beginning to see that
> system-wide changes are not as good as per-user changes, and those per-user
> changes vary, depending on the age of the child.  So I have had to give up
> on the "group" concept because unlike in a CDD like Debian-med, where roles
> are more rigid, the "role" of a child of a certain age isn't.

Well, doing per-user changes is more than a CDD can cope with.  It is
just the work of a local administrator - at least if I understand you
correctly.

> I don't know.  I didn't reject cdd-dev because it's a bad toolkit.  It was
> because I began to see ways in which Jr. was quite different from the
> "typical" CDD, so it was not really as good a match as I at first thought.

I'm afraid I do not fully understand your concerns and I even don't
know what you regard as "typical" CDD and what the differences are
between this typical concept and Debian Jr.   Could you try to be a
little bit more verbose to let me understand the problem.  My concern
is that if there is only _one_ "typical" CDD that uses cdd-dev than
the word "typical" is not used apropriately and this is my concern.

IMHO there are two reasons:
   1. If all CDDs have so different needs that there is no chance to
      base them on a common toolkit, it makes no sense to continue
      development of cdd-dev.
   2. The toolkit cdd-dev is just not flexible enough and has to be
      enhanced to enable more CDDs that will justify the attribute
      "typical".

That's why I'm keen on hearing your opinion about the differences
you see to decide whether reason 1. or 2. applies.

Kind regards

          Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de