On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 03:45:06PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > After being repeatedly slapped with a wet trout, I have been > convinced to change my views on this issue. (I'll refrain from > reiterating what Raul, Jason, and Guy have already said before).
Sounds like that makes it unanimous against me. I'd like the Technical Committee to: 1) Tell me exactly how how rename and/or reversion my package; 2) Revise the Debian Policy Manual to forbid the action I took, since it is not permitted. If you guys need to vote first, I'll wait until that is resolved. Manoj, I'd appreciate hearing from you privately on specifically what changed your mind; Guy proposed adding an epoch, which actually turned out to not be a solution at all, for instance. So it is unclear to me which statements in all of Raul's, Jason's, and Guy's mails are to be held as controlling here. Furthermore, if the Committee agrees with Jason's mail "My thought", I need an answer from the archive maintainers on 1). The Policy Manual should be further amended to mandate that developers request and receive approval from the archive maintainers on how their packages are to be named and versioned. (It could probably be made part of the ITP process.) -- G. Branden Robinson | Q: How does a Unix guru have sex? Debian GNU/Linux | A: unzip;strip;touch;finger;mount; [EMAIL PROTECTED] | fsck;more;yes;fsck;fsck;fsck; http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | umount;sleep
