Hey there, Sorry, I was on offline vacation until now. :) El dt 26 de 12 de 2017 a les 15:24 +0000, en/na Holger Levsen va escriure: > On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 05:02:01PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > I think there are three options, and I'd love to get feedback on > > which of > > those three options we should take. > > > > 1. Status quo: there is an undocumented editor virtual package, > > Policy > > says that nothing has to provide or depend on it, and some > > random > > collection of editors provide it. I think this is a bad place > > to be, > > so I would hope we can rule out sticking with that status quo. > > > > 2. Document editor and recommend everyone implement it > > properly. Since > > we're going to allow packages to depend on editor, I think > > providing it > > would need to be a should, so that's going to be a lot of buggy > > (but > > not RC-buggy) editor packages. But it would get us to a clean > > dependency system. > > > > 3. Mark editor obsolete. > > looking at these three options for "for doing the best solution" I > think we should go for 2 or maybe 3, but then I think it's a sensible > thing to depend on, so I would say we should go with option 2. I personally would go with 2 as well, even if there's some trivial work to do to get all editors to adapt. I think the editor virtual package adds some value and completing coverage of all package should be easy and completion can be encouraged via a release goal or something similar. Let me know what the outcome is and I'll adapt nano right away. Jordi -- Jordi Mallach Pérez -- Debian developer http://www.debian.org/ jordi@sindominio.net jordi@debian.org http://www.sindominio.net/ GnuPG public key information available at http://oskuro.net/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part