On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 10:00:31PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Bug#441200: libconfig name clash"):
> > I can't see any record of anyone suggesting [libconfig1] though, and
> > I'd really hope that it wouldn't be accepted at NEW.
> See #438683 where otherwise sensible people are suggesting using the
> name libconfig1 for the new library due to the TC's inactivity.#438683 has a new maintainer who hasn't passed T&S or P&P and who isn't otherwise involved in the ITP suggesting it as above, and Martin Michlmayr retitling the bug so his scripts are more accurate: ] I'll retitle the bug for now since it messe up my script that check ] for consistency of WNPP bugs. (libconfig exists already in the ] archive, so it thinks this ITP should be closed). I don't find that remotely concerning or particularly relevant. > I think we need to decide this issue without allowing ourselves to be > diverted into protracted negotiations with the maintainers. > I would be happy with us simply issuing advice to the ftpmasters for > their NEW processing. Would you be happy with such a clause ? > I see that you think it's unnecessary but the art of politics is > compromise. If you don't think it's harmful and I think it's > necessary, are you willing to see it included ? > Picking names ourselves is going to make us deeply unpopular (rightly > so IMO) and get us well bogged down in bikeshedding. So we shouldn't be involved in negotiations -- even to the extent of asking maintainers where they stand; shouldn't pick anything particular ourselves, and should practice the art of politics by compromising? All over a name that hasn't even been suggested by any of the packagers? Cheers, aj
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
