[csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs py_lxml

[Dagobert Michelsen]

Hi Phil,

Am 02.03.2010 um 00:47 schrieb Philip Brown:
> okay, thats perfectly understandable. but meanwhile, we still have to
> justify why exactly we are packaging up py_lxml, when py_libxml2
> exists, and we need to do it in a way that is reflected in its
> description.

IMHO your approach to descriptions is wrong. The description for the
basic package should describe what is in there in terms of upstream.
For this specific example it means "lxml" so you know what is in there.
We package stuff up what is created upstream. It is not ours to
argue or rectify why there are multiple versions. The important thing
in descriptions is describing how packages are split ("This package
contains the docs", "you need this if you want to compile", etc.).

The typical usecases are:
1. Automatic install because it is a dependency for something and the
    user doesn't care anyway
2. The user already decided what he wants to work against and wants to
    install that software from OpenCSW. Again, description is not
    important.
3. The user installed the package, but it doesn't work because there
    are related components. Here the descriptions are important and they
    must reflect what OpenCSW has done to the upstream software.

IMHO nobody will decide which libxml binding he is using by the
description of the package. And, yes, if there are 50 editors and
we have 50 maintainers who use these then, yes, we package up
50 editors. Opensource is about choice, and it is not ours to
decide.


Best regards

   -- Dago