[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: opinions of snappy packages

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 10:11:23PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The point has been made that there are lots of other clients in Debian main
> that only talk to a single, proprietary server implementation; so if snapd
> did only talk to the Canonical store, I believe its placement in main would
> still be consistent with archive policy / past Technical Committee
> decisions.

Right. It seems I have a different opinion here than the project has
in general, and because of that, I think it's as OK for snapd to be in
main as those other packages. And becaus snapd now has, or is getting,
support for other server sides, and there's a free one appearing, even
if I wasn't, it would still be OK.

Schrödinger's backup hypothesis: the condition of any backup is
undefined until a restore is attempted. -- andrewsh

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: