midnight commander package fixes, opinions wanted

midnight commander package fixes, opinions wanted

[ng0]

Hi,

I already fixed some of the open issues with our package of 'mc'.

I think people will expect features to just work and not being broken
(as they are right now).
My personal opinion ignored, how do you want to proceed? The vim way
where we have $package (basic, as small as it gets) and $package-full
(with all the features you can have enabled)?

I'd like to hear your opionion so that I can proceed fixing mc with
what we agreed on.

Re: midnight commander package fixes, opinions wanted

[ng0]

On 17-03-01 16:58:41, ng0 wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I already fixed some of the open issues with our package of 'mc'.
> 
> I think people will expect features to just work and not being broken
> (as they are right now).
> My personal opinion ignored, how do you want to proceed? The vim way
> where we have $package (basic, as small as it gets) and $package-full
> (with all the features you can have enabled)?
> 
> I'd like to hear your opionion so that I can proceed fixing mc with
> what we agreed on.
> 

And also your opinion, I don't know what an opionion is but it sounds
like opium combined with onion and I don't want that.

Re: midnight commander package fixes, opinions wanted

[Efraim Flashner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1293 bytes --]

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 05:01:23PM +0000, ng0 wrote:
> On 17-03-01 16:58:41, ng0 wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I already fixed some of the open issues with our package of 'mc'.
> > 
> > I think people will expect features to just work and not being broken
> > (as they are right now).
> > My personal opinion ignored, how do you want to proceed? The vim way
> > where we have $package (basic, as small as it gets) and $package-full
> > (with all the features you can have enabled)?
> > 
> > I'd like to hear your opionion so that I can proceed fixing mc with
> > what we agreed on.
> > 
> 
> And also your opinion, I don't know what an opionion is but it sounds
> like opium combined with onion and I don't want that.
> 

I've been sitting on a patch for ranger for a while. I also couldn't
decide between packaging just ranger or also linking in the various
programs it calls.

I think that if mc would use libcaca to display an image, and just
installing libcaca in profile would satisfy that dependancy, then
leaving it out is "not great, but acceptable".

-- 
Efraim Flashner   <efraim@flashner.co.il>   אפרים פלשנר
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

bug#25273: midnight commander package fixes, opinions wanted

[ng0]

On 17-03-01 17:01:23, ng0 wrote:
> On 17-03-01 16:58:41, ng0 wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I already fixed some of the open issues with our package of 'mc'.
> > 
> > I think people will expect features to just work and not being broken
> > (as they are right now).
> > My personal opinion ignored, how do you want to proceed? The vim way
> > where we have $package (basic, as small as it gets) and $package-full
> > (with all the features you can have enabled)?
> > 
> > I'd like to hear your opionion so that I can proceed fixing mc with
> > what we agreed on.
> > 
> 
> And also your opinion, I don't know what an opionion is but it sounds
> like opium combined with onion and I don't want that.
> 

For the lack of reaction for a long time, due to whatever reasons, I
will simply propose that we go the way of vim and vim-full.

'mc-full' will have many more dependencies than our current 'mc' and
should in the end be fully functional, while 'mc' will still complain
about missing features. The description of mc-full shall reflect that
you get full functionality with this application variant.

Anyone who wants this, feel free to pick it up and fix the related bug.

Re: midnight commander package fixes, opinions wanted

[ng0]

On 17-03-01 17:01:23, ng0 wrote:
> On 17-03-01 16:58:41, ng0 wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I already fixed some of the open issues with our package of 'mc'.
> > 
> > I think people will expect features to just work and not being broken
> > (as they are right now).
> > My personal opinion ignored, how do you want to proceed? The vim way
> > where we have $package (basic, as small as it gets) and $package-full
> > (with all the features you can have enabled)?
> > 
> > I'd like to hear your opionion so that I can proceed fixing mc with
> > what we agreed on.
> > 
> 
> And also your opinion, I don't know what an opionion is but it sounds
> like opium combined with onion and I don't want that.
> 

For the lack of reaction for a long time, due to whatever reasons, I
will simply propose that we go the way of vim and vim-full.

'mc-full' will have many more dependencies than our current 'mc' and
should in the end be fully functional, while 'mc' will still complain
about missing features. The description of mc-full shall reflect that
you get full functionality with this application variant.

Anyone who wants this, feel free to pick it up and fix the related bug.

Re: midnight commander package fixes, opinions wanted

[ng0]

On 17-03-06 11:55:27, Efraim Flashner wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 05:01:23PM +0000, ng0 wrote:
> > On 17-03-01 16:58:41, ng0 wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > I already fixed some of the open issues with our package of 'mc'.
> > > 
> > > I think people will expect features to just work and not being broken
> > > (as they are right now).
> > > My personal opinion ignored, how do you want to proceed? The vim way
> > > where we have $package (basic, as small as it gets) and $package-full
> > > (with all the features you can have enabled)?
> > > 
> > > I'd like to hear your opionion so that I can proceed fixing mc with
> > > what we agreed on.
> > > 
> > 
> > And also your opinion, I don't know what an opionion is but it sounds
> > like opium combined with onion and I don't want that.
> > 
> 
> I've been sitting on a patch for ranger for a while. I also couldn't
> decide between packaging just ranger or also linking in the various
> programs it calls.
> 
> I think that if mc would use libcaca to display an image, and just
> installing libcaca in profile would satisfy that dependancy, then
> leaving it out is "not great, but acceptable".
> 
> -- 
> Efraim Flashner   <efraim@flashner.co.il>   אפרים פלשנר
> GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
> Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted


It's not that easy. The references to applications are absolute
using '/usr/{bin,sbin}' and similar ones.

Maybe it's possible to just use the application name, but that depends
on the context in the code, etc.