Bug#717076: libjpeg draft resolution
- To: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>, 717076@bugs.debian.org
- Cc: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>, Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org>, Ondrej@roeckx.be, Sur <ondrej@debian.org>, ""@roeckx.be, Bill Allombert <ballombe@debian.org>, Mike Gabriel <mike.gabriel@das-netzwerkteam.de>, secretary@debian.org
- Subject: Bug#717076: libjpeg draft resolution
- From: Andreas Barth <aba@ayous.org>
- Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 00:49:19 +0100
- Message-id: <20140321234919.GA16461@mails.so.argh.org>
- Reply-to: Andreas Barth <aba@ayous.org>, 717076@bugs.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <21292.52583.383017.107748@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
- References: <20140320173701.GA8559@riva.ucam.org> <20140321200014.GA8701@roeckx.be> <21292.52583.383017.107748@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
* Ian Jackson (ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [140322 00:39]:
> (resending because of some 8-bit header damage)
>
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#717076: libjpeg draft resolution"):
> > So if you really want to prevent using a supermajority, I suggest
> > you write is so that you at least don't mention the other package
> > by name but make it more general.
>
> Seriously ?
>
> > I also suggest you don't mention the name libjpeg-dev directly but
> > instead use words to describe it so that it still applies when it
> > needs to be renamed for whatever reason.
> In this particular case we have two packages both of which want to
> claim the libjpeg-dev virtual package name, which for technical
> reasons ought to be provided by only one of them. Clearly this is a
> question of overlapping jurisdictions.
IMHO this is even one of the examples of the constitution for
overlapping jurisdiction:
| for example, [...] about who should be the maintainer for a package
Andi
Reply to: