On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 12:17:33AM +0100, Floris Bruynooghe wrote: > Hi > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 08:39:42PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > wrt the "current" thingie, I may have a proposal ready soon, I just > > need to polish the details, and look how "hard" it would be to upgrade > > the dh_py* tools to them. Well, I've a hard week of paid work ahead, so > > I don't expect to have it ready before next week. > > So is there any sort of consensus about "current" then? How should we > use it -- or avoid it? Or did I completely miss the conclusion of > this discussion? Due to real life events (a son) I've not been able to draft the proposal I want to make. But basically, "current" semantics as is is quite broken and we are many to concur. I'll *try* to have something soon, for a fairly blurry definition of soon. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpsHl0Rlnhhu.pgp
Description: PGP signature