I am working on taking over the bibtool package, QA-orphaned last
week. I find to my surprise that the source package builds not only a
'bibtool' package, but also 'bibtool-dev' which contains a static
library.

I question the utility of the bibtool-dev package:

- No packages depend or build-depend on it (no recommends or suggests
either).

- It has only 4 popcon votes for it.
=20=20=20
- The library simply consists of every source file for the bibtool
binary, except main.c

- It does not appear to be designed with reusable abstractions in mind.

- Most symbols that are exported from one .o in the library are used
by another. Theses include "db_find", "error", "init_entries",
"get_item", "seen", "show_version", "add_word", "new_string",
"sbputc", "lower". No namespace conservation effort is apparent.
Including this in any larger piece of software would be a tiptoeing
business.

I am tempted to decide that bibtool-dev is just a waste of mirror
space and Packages.gz bandwidth.  On the other hand, it might be
considered unethical to adopt a package only to kill off one of its
.debs.

Opinions solicited.

--=20
Henning Makholm                                                  "Nett hier.
Aber waren Sie schon mal in Baden-W=FCrttember=
g?"

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 10:41:17PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I am working on taking over the bibtool package, QA-orphaned last
> week. I find to my surprise that the source package builds not only a
> 'bibtool' package, but also 'bibtool-dev' which contains a static
> library.

> I question the utility of the bibtool-dev package:

>  - No packages depend or build-depend on it (no recommends or suggests
>    either).

>  - It has only 4 popcon votes for it.

>  - The library simply consists of every source file for the bibtool
>    binary, except main.c

>  - It does not appear to be designed with reusable abstractions in mind.

>  - Most symbols that are exported from one .o in the library are used
>    by another. Theses include "db_find", "error", "init_entries",
>    "get_item", "seen", "show_version", "add_word", "new_string",
>    "sbputc", "lower". No namespace conservation effort is apparent.
>    Including this in any larger piece of software would be a tiptoeing
>    business.

> I am tempted to decide that bibtool-dev is just a waste of mirror
> space and Packages.gz bandwidth.  On the other hand, it might be
> considered unethical to adopt a package only to kill off one of its
> .debs.

Not at all unethical; I for one greatly appreciate it if packages get this
kind of attention from new maintainers.  Anyway, you certainly don't owe it
to the previous maintainer to keep packages around that you believe were
mistakes.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]