RE: Signature for QA?
Josip Rodin (joy@cibalia.gkvk.hr) on Friday, April 02, 1999 5:08 PM
>
> On Fri, Apr 02, 1999 at 11:41:33PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > [...]
> [...]
>
> > means ASCII To Postscript, although it is quite obvious).
> > Santiago complains
> > that the package actually converts iso-8859-1 to
> > postscript, rather than
> > ASCII to postscript (I don't quite understand the
> > distinction.), and so
>
> For example, US ASCII is 7-bit, ISO-8859-n are 8-bit...
>
> > Since Santiago and I disagree, the bug (#14275) remains
> > open. There is,
> > imho, nothing to fix. I would appreciate comments on this issue.
>
> Close it. Santiago is right, but there is nothing we can do but fork.
No, Santiago is not right:
1. Package writer is right.
2. Even when he is not right, paragraph 1. is applied.
3. Santiagos proposal is still wrong.
To elaborate:
1. Package writer knows what the package does, did, or has done.
If the name was appropriate, then it is a correct one, even
if functionality has been extended (iso-8859-1 et al. are
supersets of ascii). Besides, ascii has had wider scope than
usascii, that's why there are two terms.
2. Even if the name would be totally inappropriate or irrelevant
still the creator gets to name the package. Debian can not
and should not force name change on packages if there is no
name conflict.
3. Should the name be 8859-1tp? It probably cannot be 8859tp
(what a horrendous name) since it probably does not handle
all of iso-8859-n. What to call it when it is extended to
handle iso-8859-15 (which add currency symbol euro to iso-8859-1)?
Close the bug, since it is not a bug.
t.aa
BTW, Debian should be renamed, its name should always
be derived from current project leader and members of tc
Reply to: