On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 17:05 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> OK. I don't not remember that. A pointer to that discussion would be
> useful. You only included a link to a Ubuntu web page which is IMO not
> directly relevant when proposing structural changes in Debian (or at
> least: does not provide sufficient justification for proposing/applying
> packaging changes in Debian).
I also linked to the previous discussion on this mailing list. My
reading of that was that many people wanted the benefit that this
brings, but that the implementation wasn't right.
> Reason I think at least some kind of consensus on d-devel should be
> reached is that, although only two BRs have been filed now, a lot more
> packages are affected. IMO this is something where packages should be
> consistent which makes the change effectively a policy change.
>
I can see your point here, and perhaps I should have written to the list
to discuss it first.
> Where was it determined that the current Ubuntu solution is acceptable and
> desirable for Debian? Was it discussed whether or not such changes are
> suitable to be applied at this stage of the Lenny release cycle?
Perhaps I misspoke. I should have said that the current solution does
not suffer from the issues that made the previous solution unacceptable.
Therefore I'd like to ask a few questions:
1. Are there any objections to the approach that have not already
been raised in the thread?
2. Does anyone feel that the objections mean that this approach
should not be adopted?
3. Are these changes appropriate for this stage of the release cycle?
Thanks,
James
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
