Quoting Charles Plessy (2014-07-06 15:49:30) >> On Sat, Jul 05, 2014 at 04:37:16PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote: >>>> >>>> This violates the Policy's section 10.1, but it is still my >>>> favorite solution for the reason that you explained above. > On my side I find these renamings harmful and illogical. The > probability that people want to use both amaps on the same machine is > close to zero, and the probability that users of both amaps will be > annoyed by the rename is close to one. I think that these renamings > are applied dogmatically in a way that makes Debian inferior. I do > not want to participate to this. I understand your view, Charles, and am interested in raising that discussion (again) as a general issue in Debian. It is a bad approach, IMO, to encourage new package maintainers to go against Policy. At least you did explicitly reference Policy when you did. Thanks for that! When I (somewhat similarly) adviced about naming of node(js) binary, I was unaware it violated Policy (I thought it was at most a "should" and didn't check). As you probably remember that ended with ctte ruling, so close to freeze that Nodejs didn't enter Wheezy. (some may applaud delay of stable Nodejs, but that's a different issue) - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature