Re: Genericly-named debian.net domains for private use (was Re: Point to semi-official backported packages?)
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 10:00:46AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Paul Wise [Sat, 28 Mar 2009 12:35:44 +0900]:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 8:28 PM, Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> wrote:
> > > (And yes, I know about backports.d.n; maybe I'll get 'round to submitting
> > > or maintaining stuff there at some point, but for the present it is
> > > a bit easier for me to keep it all in a single repo :)
>
> > I think you mean backports.org, backports.debian.net is not what you
> > think it is. Despite its name, backports.d.n is a personal backports
> > archive for Daniel Bauman.
>
> I really don’t get why it’s appropriate for a developer to use such
> generic names for their personal stuff. git.debian.net seems to be
> Daniel’s too.
>
> Wouldn’t it be just better to point those domains to the respective
> project-wide efforts? I’d appreciate opinions on the matter.
I'd go a little further and instate a general rule such as:
- All subdomains of debian.org should exist in debian.net and point to
the same location.
- All domains external to debian.org but providing official support
should also be accessible from a subdomain of debian.org.
- All external domains providing unofficial support should also be
accessible from a subdomain of debian.net.
That would also be the occasion to discuss about the status of
backports, buildd.net and others.
Mike
Reply to: