On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 17:26 +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > Le mercredi 22 juin 2011 à 10:20 -0400, Adam C Powell IV a écrit : > > On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 13:29 +1000, Drew Parsons wrote: > > > On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 08:33 -0400, Manjusha Joshi wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Brett Viren <bv@bnl.gov> wrote: > > > > Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org> writes: > > > > > > > > > == Proposal == > > > > > > > > > > I would like to propose the following: > > > > > * move all packaging related discussions to > > > > > debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org > > > > > * use debian-science@lists.debian.org only for user oriented > > > > discussions > > > > > * make sure that all the commit mails are sent on > > > > > debian-science-maintainers-commits@lists.alioth.debian.org > > > > > [...] > > > > > FWIW I agree with Drew on this. It's hard to segregate user queries > > from packaging queries, and many "user discussions" probably belong on > > the lists of the individual projects, as Manjusha mentioned this > > morning. (Indeed, I see a lot of Debian- and Ubuntu-related questions > > on forums such as FreeCAD and Elmer.) > > > > Debian is about packaging software, not generating it, and users who > > come to Debian lists will probably want to discuss that packaging, not > > the software itself. > You are probably right with this argument... > > > Can the proponents of this proposal please > > describe what kinds of discussions would belong on debian-science if we > > decide to make the change? > I was more thinking about people exchanging about already packaged > software. For example, "what is the best software for CFD available into > Debian ?", "Is there any connector between XX and YY ?", etc. This makes a lot of sense -- comparing, say, CFD software or statistical packages packaged for Debian, is something users might want to discuss without the overhead of all the packaging talk. I've seen similar discussions on CAD packages. But beyond this, such a discussion would probably turn to "I like package A better than B, because B doesn't have feature X," to which the reply might be "B has feature X upstream, but it's not implemented in the Debian package." After which they'd be politely pushed to the packaging list, and the discussion in the archives would be split between two lists. I could see this happening often. So FWIW I'm not quite convinced. But of course I'll go along with the decision of the majority/consensus -- if I see more packaging discussions on d-s-m than d-s, then I'll start my new threads there. -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part