On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 06:06:37PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> So, please keep heckling from the peanut gallery to a minimum, > >> please, and assume that policy editors have a modicum of sense when > >> dealing with their role duties.
> > If you were showing a modicum of sense, there would be no need to assume. > > For example, not referring to a fellow member of the Technical Committee, > > the constitutional authority on Debian technical policy, as "the peanut > > gallery". > The word you are looking for is not sense. It is respect. > You expect respect based on the position you hold -- not the > arguments you made. I reject the notion that I should make exeptions > based on the office you hold (in other words, it is OK to call non-dd's > on the list members of the peanut gallery, but not the > oh-so-respectable ctte members such). I don't think it's appropriate for you to refer to *any* participant on debian-policy as "the peanut gallery". I additionally think that referring to a member of the TC that way is stupid. My original post to this thread was a technical argument in direct response to a series of technical propositions that you advanced. This subthread has since degenerated into a pissing contest, apparently because I've dared trespass the bounds of the mailing list that is your marked territory. Thanks for that. But if this is all the more respect you have for your fellow (TC members|DDs|human beings), O Peerless and Saintly Policy Editor, then perhaps the project should reconsider whether that's a position you should hold. > saying that policy team members should not do something that I had not > actually advocated (I never said that dpkg implementation was a > prerequisite to adding things to policy --- I just asked why that is > not the reasonable thing to do first). "If we are going to enshrine ddebs into policy, we might as well teach dpkg about ddebs." http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2009/08/msg00044.html That was not a question. But apparently, any statements you've made in emails more than a day old are "strawmen" that you're not responsible for. > >> Seems like if policy carves out a namespace for debug packages, > >> it would serve for both automatically generated and hand crafted debug > >> packages; and it is trivial for the automatic generation not to happen > >> when there is an entry in debian/control for a debug package already, > >> as long as there is a naming convention for debug packages. > > That's fair, but it doesn't guard against package name collisions with > > packages built from a *different* source package; so if manually-built > > packages are allowed to use the same namespace, there ought to be a policy > > in place that prevents them from being provided in a way that confuses the > > automated build process. > > Umm, huh? If the name space carved out is foo-debug, or even > foo-dbg, the only collision I see is a *different* package has a native name > of foo-dbg and thus collides with the debugging symbols from foo. > If such packages existed, then not only would they create > trouble with the current slew of debug packages, they can always be > resolved by our normal disambiguation rules. The normal disambiguation rules involve telling someone to stop building a conflicting package. If one of the parties is an automated build, that doesn't work so well. Either the namespace should be clearly reserved, or the automatic build hooks are going to have to maintain a blacklist of packages not to act on. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
