On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 11:26:46AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > > No, but the situation is pretty similar to the /usr/doc thing. Given > > sufficient transition time there is no reason why we shouldn't drop > > the single CNAME entirely in favour of something else (like a webpage > > listing some networks people might want to visit, or a whole range of > > CNAMEs). > > That sounds better. Which of these options are you suggesting? All of them. (Almost) everything I have suggested so far in this thread has been an option. If this ever goes to a vote, I intend to see that most of them are represented on it. > > > > You'd sound a hell of a lot less like Theo de Raadt if you actually made > > > > some attempt at doing this, rather than attempting to hand us an answer > > > > you brought down from the mountain engraved on stone tablets. > > > > > > I mentioned what seemed to be a viable option, not a definite > > > answer. > > > > You have continually implied that the CNAME should exist and should > > point somewhere else, and have never presented any evidence of giving > > other options serious consideration. > > That's because the CNAME already exists so for backwards compatibility it > should keep existing for at least some time in the future in any case, so > replacing it seems like the best thing to do. See above. > > Nor have you given any consideration to what will happen next time a > > similar issue is raised. > > If we do things properly this time, there may not be a next time. Indeed, and simply changing the CNAME to point elsewhere does nothing at all to prevent there being a next time. Hence my (continued) efforts to establish some sort of criteria for what we should actually use such names for (seems to be the obvious way to deal with future issues). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing, `. `' | Imperial College, `- -><- | London, UK
Attachment:
pgpPTu7c_LwbJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature