found 599740 apt-listbugs/0.0.1 tags 599740 + wontfix thanks
On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 19:30:14 +0200 Thomas Koch wrote: > Package: apt-listbugs > Version: 0.1.3 > Severity: wishlist > > I know that this may sound like trolling, but I do seriously believe, > that ruby should not be used for any piece inside the Debian system. > People may choose to package some software written in ruby, but > apt-listbugs is not any piece of random software happened to be packaged > for Debian but an import piece of the system. Hi Thomas, and thanks for your bug report. It does not really sound like trolling: you are expressing your opinion on the opportunity of relying on a given programming language (Ruby) for a tool like apt-listbugs. I respect your opinion and appreciate that you consider apt-listbugs as an important package within the Debian distribution. > > I've seen at least three different error messages from apt-listbugs over > the time. Today it's bug #577192. All the error messages indicate some > kind of API incompatibility. > > As Lukas Nussbaum points out in his blog, ruby has a horrible way of > breaking it's API even with minor updates. This does not seem to be a > good foundation to build infrastructur tools on. I acknowledge that Ruby has some downsides: among other things, it lacks good DFSG-free textbooks explaining the language (and no, I do not consider all those online books under GFDL or Creative Commons licenses as DFSG-free... I would like to see a good GPL'ed book or something under the Expat or BSD license!). More specifically, I acknowledge that frequent API changes are a bit problematic: for instance, apt-listbugs is not yet compatible with Ruby 1.9.x ... :-( However, one must also consider that Ruby is a nice language with a number of good features. > > Wouldn't you outcry in pure horror, if somebody introduced another apt > tool written in PHP? Probably, but I think Ruby is far better than PHP in so many respects that I don't consider this as a fair comparison. > > Please keep this bug open for at least some months to collect thoughts > on this subject. I can keep this bug report open for some time, since you ask me to do so. However, taking into account that apt-listbugs has been a Ruby application since its first version (AFAIK), I am adding version 0.0.1 to the list of versions affected by this bug. Moreover, I am tagging this bug report as "wontfix", meaning that the bug is not going to be fixed *in this package*. The proper way to fix this bug is to create a new separate program in another language (in C++, for instance) and package it. Feel free to start this effort, if you have the expertise, willingness and time to do so: I cannot promise to help, since spare time is really scarce around here... :-( Please remember that, if this new "reimplementation" is an adapted translation of apt-listbugs from Ruby to another language, then the new program will be a derivative work of apt-listbugs, and will therefore have to be distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 or later, and will be copyrighted by apt-listbugs copyright holders, as well as by its own developer(s). If, on the other hand, the new "reimplementation" is written from scratch by only getting inspiration from apt-listbugs documentation, then the new program will be an independent work, copyrighted by its developer(s) and distributed under a license of their choice. Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/progs/scripts/pdebuild-hooks.html Need some pdebuild hook scripts? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpyHP0BLPgE9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
