Re: Time to change the debian-ports "list"?
Steve McIntyre dixit:
>>That seems like a bad idea to me, tbh. There will be people who won't
>>notice that the meaning of debian-ports@ has changed, and who will try
>>to use it with its old meaning.
>favour of the existing behaviour. If anybody does use try to use it
>that way in future, the new list will most likely be the best place
>for their mail to go...
I agree, the new ports list would probably be the better place; mails
and people can still be directed elewhere, but this would take less
time from people to whom the message “probably” should not have gone
in the first place.
(Take my recent message, for example – while the ports multiplicator
was not wrong per se, the new list would have been even better. If
needed I could have added individual architectures’ lists, but I’d
only do that if urgent.)
>I'm in favor of the old design because I think it's important to havw a
>list which can be used to make announcements about important issues
>that all porters should be aware of.
Even then, the new design is better (active porters will likely
subscribe to the new list, users won’t, but they’re getting the
“spam” right now), and for archive-wide things, d-devel-announce
is the place to go anyway.
(gnutls can also be used, but if you are compiling lynx for your own use,
there is no reason to consider using that package)
-- Thomas E. Dickey on the Lynx mailing list, about OpenSSL