Re: Package names and the year 2000.
[Moving this to the policy list]
Please come up with a technical reason better than "this would
be a shame", since you are asking for a lot of work, and, in cases,
for Debian to be a maverick non standard distribution (latex2html
1966.1 rev h?)
I think this is an isuue that does not need to be solved.
In the future. please refrain from posting bug reports on
policy that has been decided just by yourself. There should be a
modicum of discussion. I think that inplementing maverick policy by
mass filing bug reports is just plain *WRONG*.
Rationale for people on the devel list:
Why should we tell authors to change upstream version numbers?
Just because Debian *may* arbitarily decide to change policy? This
has not yet been ratified, and, in any case, is horribly arrogant of
Debian to go about asking authors to change names to fit our policy.
The version of the *upstream* package should be respected, and
we should not be arbitarily changing it for aesthetics. People also
recognize this version number from other places (mailing lists, or
the USENET newsgroups, for example, or from non-Debian machines), and
there is associated baggage (bugs, idiosyncrasies, etc).
Also, documentation in other packages refers to the upstream
version number. I do not think Debian should go about being
the non-standard, non-conformant maverick and arbitarily change
upstream version numbers.
I agree with the policy that if _we_ choose to assign date
based version numbers, we should follow policy as *proposed* by
Santiago Vila Doncel <email@example.com>. I do not think this should go
near the top of the list of things to do, though.
A stitch in time saves nine.
Manoj Srivastava <url:mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
Mobile, Alabama USA <url:http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .