[csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs py_lxml

[Sebastian Kayser]

Philip Brown wrote on 01.03.2010 23:26:
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Sebastian Kayser <skayser at opencsw.org> wrote:
>> Philip Brown wrote on 01.03.2010 21:33:
> ...
>>> How about this:
>>>
>>>
>>> NAME=py_lxml - libxml2 binding with cleaner python syntax than py_libxml2
>> I see your point in helping the user to sort out what exactly py_lxml
>> might be for when there is already py_libxml2.
>>
>> The problem I am having with this wording is that it puts a comparative,
>> negative verdict upon py_libxml2. I would rather have the user make his
>> own judgments.
>>
>> Can you think of something concise that creates a relationship to
>> py_libxml2 without depreciating it at the same time?
>>
> 
> are you objecting to the adjective "cleaner"?

Yes. Although I appreciate the thought you put into the description,
it's the valued comparison that I don't want to put in.

> there are word games we can play, but at the end of the day, lets look
> at the result we are aiming for:
> 
> This package exists because it is "closer to standard python syntax"
> than py_libxml2.
> 
> That is why YOU use it. And you use it because in your view, it is
> "better than" py_libxml2.
> So anything we put in, is going to have some sort of "negative"
> reflection of py_libxml2. Because after all, anything we put in that
> accurately describes it, is going to imply py_libxml2 is inferior.
> Which it is.

How would you know? At least I couldn't say that a 100% sure. lxml's
documentation was simply more accessible, there were more tutorials out
there for it and my gut feeling told me to not bother with libxml2. It
was easy to use and our IRC bot as well as the upcoming CLI interface to
Mantis runs on it. Felt like the more accessible product to me.

Nevertheless, that's not something I want to base a package description
on. I would put in there what the package is about, not how it compares
to competitor b. Neither would I package an Icinga package which says
"Nagios fork which has the better GUI" just because I think so.

Would you headline OpenCSW with "More comprehensive package repository
than sunfreeware.com"? I wouldn't.

> If the user does not share your value judgements about "being close to
> python syntax is better", then they wont see it as a negative, so you
> neednt worry about it.

That's not my point. I simply don't want to put my name next to
something which I don't mean to say.

Sebastian