Am Dienstag, den 27.01.2009, 14:01 +0100 schrieb Daniel Leidert: > Do you mean: debian-science.alioth.d.o == "Debian Science"? Are you > kidding me? Please get serious. No, I did not mean that. The former is a packaging effort and just a part of the later. > It is maybe a place to pickup packages/developers not fitting into > existing groups or don't wanting to join existing groups. It is not > "Debian Science". It is a small packaging repository - one out of > several. Agreed. And this packaging repository is what the policy document was targeted at. For this repository and nothing more. If this was stated otherwise, that was just wrong and not intended. I'm sorry if that was the case! > The document doesn't title itself as a packaging guideline only > applicable to debian-science.alioth.d.o. So your claim, that it can be > compared to the debian-med policy is wrong. I agree that the wording can be improved and will provide a patch if this is a way to resolve this dispute. > Can you please point me to the RFC? The time I missed to answer, it was > IIRC promoted as "Debian Science Policy", not as a draft for discussion. http://lists.debian.org/debian-science/2008/05/msg00217.html and the messages followed by that. All feedback was included into the document. > Can you please point me to the discussion? Why does the list description > doesn't reflect, that this is considered a "user list"? Why are still > most topics related to packaging and to coordinate where to put > packages? I'm curious about your statement. I guess it was somewhere around http://lists.debian.org/debian-science/2008/01/msg00025.html or a later message, when the packaging effort part of Debian Science formed. I did not re-read the thread, I just got the reference from memory. Anyway, I really do not see why it makes a difference where packaging issues are discussed, as long as they are discussed. The intend was not to drive users away from debian-science because it becomes full of technical discussion and BTS mails. > You've put your personal packaging preferences in a document titled with > "Debian Science Policy". Fact. I offered it for discussion and always had the Debian Science packaging effort on Alioth in mind. I'm sorry that the wording is not optimal and we had a misunderstanding because of that. This will be fixed. And I'd appreciate it if you'd help me here by exactly stating what bothers you here. As I understand it, it's just the wording, right? Best regards Manuel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil