On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:17:12PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > I'd be very unhappy about that. For one, I think using such suffix in a > > field that forms part of users' everyday's life is, uhm, inappropriate > > or disruptive. What do they care if the version is a NMU or not? > Hu? And +dfsg is and +b1 is also inappropriate and disruptive? ACK. Moreover as a user I *do* care about the various extensions since they can carry a meaning to me: a +dfsg informs me that upstream ships some non-free stuff which I should look for elsewhere in case of need, and +nmu informs me that the package is/was experiencing maintenance troubles in the recent past. As such troubles are orthogonal to the distinction between native/non-native I'm in favour of having +nmuX uniformly used for both kind of packages. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what? zack@{upsilon.cc,cs.unibo.it,debian.org} -<%>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ? /\ All one has to do is hit the (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema \/ right keys at the right time
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature