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
Charles Plessy 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 have to be r
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 cha
Charles Plessy 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 not be a should
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 b
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 w
Don Armstrong 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 consensus. [Hones
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
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 basena
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 pra
Charles Plessy 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 have to be r
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
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 requireme
13 matches
Mail list logo
