Path: csiph.com!feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!news.unit0.net!news.panservice.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Ghislain Vaillant <ghisvail@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python
Subject: Re: pycharm package in debian
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2017 11:10:02 +0200
Message-ID: <uvIq6-9D-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <uvp45-44q-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <uvr5U-5m8-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <uvBoB-3Mo-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <uvGRk-7wg-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <uvH10-7A2-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <uvHaF-7E0-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <uvI6J-8eP-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <uvIq6-9D-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <uvIq6-9D-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
Old-Return-Path: <ghisvail@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114bb68eef1cc7055a78950f"
Approved: robomod@news.nic.it
Lines: 95
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
Sender: robomod@news.nic.it
Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:9893

--001a114bb68eef1cc7055a78950f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Le 1 oct. 2017 09:49, "Ben Finney" <bignose@debian.org> a =C3=A9crit :

Ghislain Vaillant <ghisvail@gmail.com> writes:

> Don't get me wrong, I understand the rationales from a DFSG
> perspective. I am just questioning whether users of this particular
> piece of software would particularly care.

The same could be asked of many user-facing packages in Debian. Your
question, though, makes an incorrect assumption: that =E2=80=9Cusers of thi=
s
particular piece of software=E2=80=9D is a group whose membership is unaffe=
cted
by having the package in Debian.

On the contrary. Take me as a counter-example. I am not a user of this
particular piece of software, because I have little interest in judging
for myself the hundreds of user-facing applications on my system.

If it were in Debian I can then take all the assurance that brings about
freedom and maintenance, and I may indeed consider using this particular
piece of software where otherwise I would not.

So, one important reason to package a work in Debian is to *increase*
the set of people who can easily install and use it.


All 3 means of installation (Jetbrain's app, snap and potentially apt) are
one-liners for the end-user. So, ease-of-use is hardly a compelling
argument.

And I don't question your initial assessment about other applications in
the archive. Hence myself mentioning eclipse earlier, as a similar package
which used to be actively maintained until the effort died out.

I am just wondering whether an effort to package pycharm would not reach
the same outcome, assuming it passes the initial import phase. The Atom IDE
for instance never did.

Ghis

--001a114bb68eef1cc7055a78950f
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto"><div><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gma=
il_quote">Le=C2=A01 oct. 2017 09:49, &quot;Ben Finney&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"=
mailto:bignose@debian.org">bignose@debian.org</a>&gt; a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:<b=
r type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8=
ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"quoted-text">=
Ghislain Vaillant &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:ghisvail@gmail.com">ghisvail@gmail.=
com</a>&gt; writes:<br>
<br>
&gt; Don&#39;t get me wrong, I understand the rationales from a DFSG<br>
&gt; perspective. I am just questioning whether users of this particular<br=
>
&gt; piece of software would particularly care.<br>
<br>
</div>The same could be asked of many user-facing packages in Debian. Your<=
br>
question, though, makes an incorrect assumption: that =E2=80=9Cusers of thi=
s<br>
particular piece of software=E2=80=9D is a group whose membership is unaffe=
cted<br>
by having the package in Debian.<br>
<br>
On the contrary. Take me as a counter-example. I am not a user of this<br>
particular piece of software, because I have little interest in judging<br>
for myself the hundreds of user-facing applications on my system.<br>
<br>
If it were in Debian I can then take all the assurance that brings about<br=
>
freedom and maintenance, and I may indeed consider using this particular<br=
>
piece of software where otherwise I would not.<br>
<br>
So, one important reason to package a work in Debian is to *increase*<br>
the set of people who can easily install and use it.</blockquote></div></di=
v></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">All 3 means of instal=
lation (Jetbrain&#39;s app, snap and potentially apt) are one-liners for th=
e end-user. So, ease-of-use is hardly a compelling argument.</div><div dir=
=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">And I don&#39;t question your initial=
 assessment about other applications in the archive. Hence myself mentionin=
g eclipse earlier, as a similar package which used to be actively maintaine=
d until the effort died out.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"a=
uto">I am just wondering whether an effort to package pycharm would not rea=
ch the same outcome, assuming it passes the initial import phase. The Atom =
IDE for instance never did.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_extr=
a"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto">Ghis</div></div></div>

--001a114bb68eef1cc7055a78950f--