Re: Re: Debian and the GFDL

["Hongzheng Wang" <wanghz@.........>]

You seriously underestimate the contribution of Debian, even only
considering the packaging of GSL.  Providing pre-compiled binary
packages and organizing them well is one of the merits offered by
Linux distribution, which, I think, is a well known truth, right?
Taking GSL for an example, it is not only a computation library for
our daily scientific work, but also a supporting base for other open
source projects (please just to find out how many packages are
depending on libgsl0ldbl in Debian).  We could not say the packaging
of a particular software is silly or useless, just because it is easy
to compile and build; It's unfair.

On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 1:00 AM, Rodney Sparapani <rsparapa@.......> wrote:

> Well, I think Debian's stance is a little silly.  And, frankly, a
> Debian package for GSL is a little silly too.  For some packages,
> like XEmacs, it makes sense to have a Debian (what the heck do the
> call them, debs?).  XEmacs can be complex to compile and it has alot
> of requirements.  But, GSL's requirements are minimal.  Mostly, it
> is having a working compiler.  And, you need the compiler anyways
> to actually use GSL for the most part, right?  Therefore, it seems
> like a waste of time to support Debian, especially, if they require
> some overhead on the part of GSL to support their silly policy.
>
> $0.02, take it or leave it
>
> Rodney


-- 
HZ