Helmut Grohne <hel...@subdivi.de> writes: > Do you think it would be impossible to move forward on this matter in a > consensus-based way?
I don't know. I have some reasons to be dubious, but it's possible that I'm being excessively pessimistic. > Yes, please. Though as is evidenced in the replies to your mail, I would > try to avoid "native" and "non-native" as much as possible given the > existing confusion. I suggest using something like with-revision vs > without-revision and single-tarball (from your mail) vs > patches-separated to transport the concepts. Switching terminology to completely leave behind the terms with ambiguous meanings isn't a bad idea, but if so we really need a term that captures "is a packaging of an upstream software package with a separate existence" versus "exists solely as a Debian package." "with-revision" or "without-revision" doesn't feel to me like it does this. Native and non-native do, which is why I was sticking with them, but maybe we can come up with some other equally-good terminology. > More and more, it seems to me that we are looking into design work as > opposed to picking an existing option. *I* was doing design work, for sure. But I'm not a member of the TC. :) The point was to offer you a design to consider as part of submitting the request to the TC. > In the spirit of consensus: Do you agree that retrying this in a > consensus-based way is still possible? If the relevant people required to implement a decision are willing to tackle it that way, I am certainly willing to participate from the Policy side. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
