Here I am. Please notice what I repied to Robert's email. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Robert McQueen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 31-Aug-2005 03:49 Subject: Re: Processed: referring issue to technical committee To: Toma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Please re-send this message to the bug in question (CC to [EMAIL PROTECTED]) so that the relevant people can follow the discussion. Regards, Rob Toma wrote: > Hello, > > Yes, definitely this is the situation, I simply disagree to ename' the > package to follow the debian policy because I think this is a wrong > direction of a straight library like silc. If there is a plan to use soname > as version not in the name of the package, I will gladly follow this > direction, but not like this, since this package is very straight forward, > simply, and I believe every developer should compile his/her code agains the > current, up-to-date libsilc. > > And just for the record, the initial version of this library, w/o any > version in the name space was allowed to get into the debian repository, as > it is in now. > > So cut this short, I won't follow this policy, so I'll let the package > anyone unless the policy or the idea behind it won't change. > > In any case, i'm gladly help. > > Cheers, > > Tamas > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 10:47:38PM +0100, Robert McQueen wrote: > >>Raul Miller wrote: >> >>>It's not clear to me why this was assigned to the technical committee. >>> >>>There's definitely some issues here. For example, it sounds like libsilc >>>has some bugs that need to be fixed. >>> >>>But is there any problem that the technical committee needs to decide on? >>> >>>If so, could someone clearly and simply state what this problem is? >> >>The problem is that the maintainer refuses to concede that his packages >>are in violation of Debian's shared library packaging policy, or >>believes that this policy is incorrect or somehow irrelevant to his package. >> >>I was hoping that the technical committee might be able to discern which >>of these is the case, and then decide which elements need to be fixed >>and by whom, in order that the adoption of SILC-based software may >>continue in Debian. >> >>However, it now seems that he's willing for someone else to maintain the >>package (see his mail on #273871), so it might be in order to orphan the >>package and close this technical committee bug. >> >> >>>Thanks, >> >>Regards, >>Rob -- VWOL Tamas SZERB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
