Hi Jordan, thanks for the feedback! Am Dienstag, den 27.05.2008, 16:10 -0700 schrieb Jordan Mantha: > I think the "gatekeeper" workflow is appropriate. However, packaging > the policy and using BTS seems like overkill. It would seem to me that > with git, sending patches or merging from somebody's branch would be > easy enough. I would think that discussion via the mailing list would > get more discussion than using the BTS. OK. So I would suggest to send patches to -maintainers, and have a discussion there. Everyone can already follow the progress by subscribing to -commits to track changes to the document. Replies to commit emails will go to -maintainers. (The list is already configured to take care of that.) > There was only one spot where I had a question. In the debian/control > section it says that the Section field should be "science". I can > think of a lot of cases where a package would be in sections other > than "science". For instance, "math", "electronics", "gnome", "kde", > "libs" all seem logical as well. I just thought about a common value for it because there are a lot of scientific disciplines that do not have a section value. As I can see, it's just "math" and "electronics". I never got Sections like "kde" or "gnome" since they do not provide real information, except that an application may be part of KDE or GNOME, so others than their base packages should not set those. IMHO the whole Section stuff is superseeded by DebTags anyway but it has to be set. I'm fine with having "math" in there and can change the wording accordingly. Of course, binary packages should set it according to their function, such as "libs" or "libdevel". I'll make that more clear. Best regards Manuel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil