Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
After a discussion on debian-de...@lists.debian.org, that I have
summarised in
‘http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20091001012838.ga30...@kunpuu.plessy.org’,
I am proposing to drop or relax the requirement from the Policy section
10.4, that programs
Le Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 11:45:41PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
As discussed in that thread, the best path for a contentious point like
this with good arguments on both sides would be to go through the
Technical Committee, which is designed to be able to make decisions like
that.
I'd
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
As a user I strongly dislike to have to edit my scripts and command
line sessions in order to make them usable for my colleagues, and I
would be very annoyed if the first thing to do after installing a
package would be to check if I have to change the
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
After a discussion on debian-de...@lists.debian.org, that I have
summarised in
‘http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20091001012838.ga30...@kunpuu.plessy.org’,
I am proposing to drop or relax the requirement from the Policy section
10.4, that programs
Le Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 08:00:14PM +0200, Bill Allombert a écrit :
The goal of removing the language suffix is precisely to avoid to have to
edit your script when the program is rewritten in a different language.
Le Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 11:10:24AM -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
The
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
I think that the core of the disagreement is on how frequent the
re-implementation in a different language happen. My experience is
that in my field, bioinformatics, it is close to zero. Moreover,
when programs with similar function and same basename
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 06:33:53PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
0: Or alternatively, they're written by people like me who don't
think about other people's use of them much.
1: Possibly 3/4 or 4/4; I'm not quite sure what Steve's position is.
3/4, I guess, as I didn't really make my position
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes:
Changing policy without rough consensus would require a CTTE decision on
the matter. Since Russ and Manoj have both laid out their objections to
changing policy by removing the should directive, I don't believe there
is much hope in achieving rough
Le Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 06:33:53PM -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
In the few cases where I've run into this problem, patches have been readily
accepted upstream.
Indeed, that is the way to go, and the core of my argument is that renaming
before the patches are accepted is a deviation that
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 06:33:53PM -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
In the few cases where I've run into this problem, patches have
been readily accepted upstream.
Indeed, that is the way to go, and the core of my argument is that
renaming before
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
There is no consensus for the change, but I would like to underline that
the directive itself is not consensusual, as some other developpers
supported me in the thread on debian-devel. I think that this is a
strong indication that the directive must
Le Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 08:12:25PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
The basic idea from how I look at it is that Policy uses consensus as a
stabilizing factor as well as an approval process. This is typical for
very conservative document maintenance, such as for standards. In order
to change
found 190753 3.8.3.0
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
usertags issue
thanks
Dear all,
After a discussion on debian-de...@lists.debian.org, that I have summarised in
‘http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20091001012838.ga30...@kunpuu.plessy.org’,
I am proposing to drop or relax the
13 matches
Mail list logo
