GNU bug report logs -
#46215
[PATCH] Add yadm
Previous Next
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
Tobias,
Am Samstag, den 06.02.2021, 12:46 +0100 schrieb Tobias Geerinckx-Rice:
> Leo, Ellis,
>
> Leo Prikler 写道:
> > I'd like to say "use your best judgement", but you seem to be a
> > little
> > too fixated on having a minimal package description (and putting
> > minimal effort into it).
>
> That's uncalled for. It's certainly not the impression I get.
Apologies. To me it read like Ellis wanted to avoid making certain
substitutions for no apparent reason. I understand, that there may at
times be valid concerns w.r.t. having something as input, but rather
than talk about specific concerns, we just went in circles over what
"optional" means.
> > For instance, when the package advertises encryption, while it
> > is
> > technically optional, shipping it without gpg would be a grave
> > oversight!
>
> Well, that depends. My own rule of thumb for ‘foo supports
> encryption!’ is:
>
> $ gpg
> bash: gpg: command not found
> $ foo --encrypt
> error: whoopsie: BUG in do_foo()+0x4f44!
> <16 lines of barftrace>
> error: warning: error: No such file or directory. (-ERROR)
> $
>
> => Make gpg an input, and quick.
>
> $ gpg
> bash: gpg: command not found
> $ foo --encrypt
> error: gpg not found, please install it.
> $
>
> => This is totally fine, users who want it know what to do next.
Fair enough, but I'd still like to raise a point w.r.t. frequency. If
most use cases were to somehow involve encryption, I still think it's
better to have it in by default rather than not. Unlike Debian, we
don't really have (and probably don't want) a "recommended packages"
field in packages.
Regards,
Leo
This bug report was last modified 2 years and 278 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.