On 17/10/16 14:52, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Monday, October 17, 2016 2:47:00 PM EDT M. J. Everitt wrote:
>> On 17/10/16 14:44, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>>>> If a binary package is provided in addition to its source-based
>>>> equivalent, the name of the former should be suffixed with '-bin'
>>>> for distinction."
>>> Essentially what I would like to see in policy yes. Though it does not
>>> address the problem of identifying packages that can be built from
>>> source, that get put in tree as binary, for what ever reason.
>> Perhaps you can compile a list of such packages, as I would imagine QA
>> would be interested as to how 'widespread' this problem really is?
> That is a good task, but might be seen as finger pointing or tattling. I am 
> already an outcast. I rather let others, at least there is some awareness 
> now. 
I think enough finger-pointing has been done already, and in the absence
of other interested parties, some action on the part of the concerned
would either galvanise the point or dismiss the issue as insignificant.
> Though not sure what QA can do in the absence of some official policy to 
> enforce, beyond making requests.
It would be QA's decision as to whether the problem was an issue as
presented, and warranted some policy being drawn up and enforced.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to