Quoting Russ Allbery (2019-09-10 03:50:47) > I think using the debian namespace is the right default, particularly > when we view it through the lens of what's best for the project. > > Think of it this way: we have a new Debian package maintained by > someone who's maybe new to the project. What kind of experience do we > want them to have by default, and how do we want to store their work > to reduce the risk of various failure modes with new maintainers? [...] > Obviously, we cannot and should not *require* using the debian > namespace, and anyone who wants to can certainly create their own > namespaces. But I think it's important to note here that folks like > Jonas are not the target audience for these recommendations. Anyone > who, like him, already is doing Debian packaging and already knows how > Debian works can continue to manage their packages however they want. > They already know the onboarding costs and are comfortable with them, > the project has a track record with them and knows they're not likely > to disappear, etc. Thanks for the clarification, Russ. I agree with the "debian" area being a sensible default. @Sam: I apologize for misreading your proposal. Reading it again, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it - it was simply me not reading properly the first time. Sorry! - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature