[csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs bar

[Dagobert Michelsen]

Hi Phil,

Am 17.05.2011 um 15:52 schrieb Philip Brown:
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 2:18 AM, Dagobert Michelsen <dam at opencsw.org> wrote:
>> Am 04.05.2011 um 19:19 schrieb Philip Brown:
>>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 4:01 AM, Dagobert Michelsen <dam at opencsw.org> wrote:
>>> I have taken the extra time and hassle, to look at the file myself.
>>> Its contents are trivial. purely cosmetic.
>> 
>> Yes. That's what bar does. Cosmetic stuff on a pipe.
> 
> ah, thanks for pointing that out. I was thinking of a different "bar";
> the archive format.

Ah, yes. That is completely different :-)

>>> example:
>>> 
>>> # twiddle-background: normal
>>> # twiddle-bold: no
>>> 
>>> I would like to ask you revert to the prior maintainer's wisdom,
>> 
>> That was not wisdom, the previous package was broken and I deliberately
>> crafted that file.
> 
> okay, given that I now understand I was looking at the package in an
> incorrect context, I will attempt to reset myself, and consider things
> from a fresh view.
> 
> Are you saying that the program does not work, without that file present?
> If that is the case, that changes things, and I would certainly let
> the package through.
> 
> but unfortunatley, I have just noticed, that it does not seem to be in
> newpkgs any more somehow? THhis is surprising; i do not think that i
> removed it.

The file I included is in the documentation. A great deal of bar is to
make it look cool when you watch the pipe progress and finding the
correct location of the config file is IMHO the hardest part (also
because of this strange name, but it is upstreams choice and using
another name would confuse other people coming from different platforms).
I could ship an empty file, but having comments with the defaults is better
I think.

>>> Clutter in /etc is a bug, not a feature.
>> 
>> This is again a non-policy issue. Please release the package.
> 
> It is more accurate to say that there is *currently* no written policy on this.
> 
> That is because the maintainers have never DISCUSSED the issue.
> That does not make it a NON issue.
> 
> Since you dont agree with what I thought would be an obvious premise,
> I'll bring it up for discussion on the list.

This is perfectly ok. But it is not okay to stall package release because
of undiscussed policies. If you think of something it must be agreed first
on the list before enforcing it.


Best regards

  -- Dago