Re: Keysafe dynamic UID
Hi!
On Sun, 2016-10-23 at 12:54:56 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 00:26:40 +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> > Maybe we could fix #429671?
> > I know it's been only 9 years old, but still...
> We either need a policy change or a TC decision for that. The policy
> editor didn't want to do the former nine years ago though. I stopped
> caring back then.
*Sigh* That's not how the policy process works. The policy editors
evaluate consensual decisions an incorporate them, possibly by
applying patches, wording them, or improving proposed wording.
Also policy is in general not prescriptive, it is descriptive. We'd
only need to settle on a user naming, and then policy can follow suit
eventually. I also don't really understand where this recentish dogma
that "if it's not in policy, it does not exist" comes from, but that's
not how things have worked in the past. :/ And what with the "we need
to be told" or we cannot try to reach consensus on our own? :(
I think the solution here is pretty clear. The _-prefix is neutral,
short and used by other sytems. The Debian-prefix makes names way
long (used(?) to cause problems on display), is a Debianism that
seems wrong on non-Debian systems, and is only used by derivatives
because doing otherwise would be too much trouble.
Right now I'm actually considering going over the archive and sending
patches to convert Debian-user and debian-user to _user…
Regards,
Guillem
Reply to: