[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Jackson) writes: > I think we probably have enough bandwidth (or will do shortly) to take > on another item from our todo list. #429671 on username policy seems > to me to be where we can most obviously improve the situation so I'm > going to start there.
I believe this bug report actually embodies two issues, which we probably need to think about (and perhaps even rule on?) independently. The first is the obvious question of naming policy, which I've frankly spent less time thinking about, but which your note should certainly help launch some discussion on. The second is whether it's acceptable for a Debian package to *require* a specific username. There seems to be at least an implication that if the namespace clash potential is eliminated or significantly reduced, that this would remove the need for supporting configurability of the username used by a package or set of packages. I'm very concerned about this, since I believe that no matter how well we solve the namespace potential collision problem, there will always be users of our packages in large installation environments who have already made decisions about their username namespace that they want Debian systems to be able to "fit in to" without requiring rework or recompilation of packages. Bdale -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
