On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 10:00:31PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Bug#441200: libconfig name clash"):
> > I can't see any record of anyone suggesting [libconfig1] though, and
> > I'd really hope that it wouldn't be accepted at NEW.
> See #438683 where otherwise sensible people are suggesting using the
> name libconfig1 for the new library due to the TC's inactivity.
#438683 has a new maintainer who hasn't passed T&S or P&P and who isn't
otherwise involved in the ITP suggesting it as above, and Martin Michlmayr
retitling the bug so his scripts are more accurate:
] I'll retitle the bug for now since it messe up my script that check
] for consistency of WNPP bugs. (libconfig exists already in the
] archive, so it thinks this ITP should be closed).
I don't find that remotely concerning or particularly relevant.
> I think we need to decide this issue without allowing ourselves to be
> diverted into protracted negotiations with the maintainers.
> I would be happy with us simply issuing advice to the ftpmasters for
> their NEW processing. Would you be happy with such a clause ?
> I see that you think it's unnecessary but the art of politics is
> compromise. If you don't think it's harmful and I think it's
> necessary, are you willing to see it included ?
> Picking names ourselves is going to make us deeply unpopular (rightly
> so IMO) and get us well bogged down in bikeshedding.
So we shouldn't be involved in negotiations -- even to the extent of
asking maintainers where they stand; shouldn't pick anything particular
ourselves, and should practice the art of politics by compromising? All
over a name that hasn't even been suggested by any of the packagers?
Cheers,
aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature