Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes ("Bug#741573: Proposed draft of ballot to resolve
menu/desktop question"):
> Right. But the 'trad Debian menu' (as outlined in Policy §9.6) has never
> reached the point where "applications that need not be passed any
> special command line arguments for normal operat
Ian, I'd like to encourage you to use less loaded words than "destroy."
When I hear that term and disagree with your analysis, my emotional
reaction is strong enough that I stop reading.
Your term is loaded enough that you lose the opportunity to try and get
me to think about whether you are right
Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Bug#741573: #741573: Menu Policy and Consensus"):
> Having such serious objections that have not been adequately considered
> means you don't have rough consensus at least in the ways I judge rough
> consensus.
Thanks for your thoughtful response and care when reading.
Ho
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Bug#741573: #741573: Menu Policy and
Ian> Consensus"):
>> Having such serious objections that have not been adequately
>> considered means you don't have rough consensus at least in the
>> ways I judge rough cons
Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Bug#741573: Proposed draft of ballot to resolve
menu/desktop question"):
> Ian, I'd like to encourage you to use less loaded words than
> "destroy."
I can see why you are objecting but I'm afraid I cannot see these
proposals any other way. Perhaps as you suggest it would
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Hi.
I'd appreciate it if you would look at the restatement at the bottom and
help me make sure I'm understanding the technical implications of the
proposal we're considering.
>> I think I may be following what Ian's saying.
Ian> I agree with what you s
Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Bug#741573: Proposed draft of ballot to resolve
menu/desktop question"):
> I'd appreciate it if you would look at the restatement at the bottom and
> help me make sure I'm understanding the technical implications of the
> proposal we're considering.
...
> That doesn't make
I realise that it was perhaps a tactical error to send both
(a) a message with impassioned rhetoric and (b) a message containing
constructive proposal.
Let me repost the proposal with some extra commentary:
Ian Jackson writes:
> I had an interesting and helpful conversation with a member of the K
Ian Jackson wrote:
> - defining new field names for .desktop files to contain
>the trad menu metadata, as necessary. I think we can safely
>call these fields X-Debian-* or X-Debian-Menu-* or something.
What is the use case for these fields?
> - a small amount of work in the already-
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Maybe some people need to get rid of that mentality where other people
> have to do more work to comply with their twisted view of reality.
Calling someone else's viewpoint twisted is needlessly inflammatory and
not acceptable when discussing bugs wh
Le vendredi, 28 août 2015, 13.51:52 Ian Jackson a écrit :
> Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes:
> > Keith's proposal doesn't imply that the trad menu would "be
> > destroyed" (your words),
>
> It does. There is nothing in Keith's proposal which preserves the
> existing trad menu metadata. According to `
On Aug 28 2015, Ian Jackson wrote:
[ things about the menu system ]
This really has become a farce. This issue been open for more than a
year. Sam rephrased the entire issue earlier this year in terms of
consensus and has just finished his analysis. And now it seems the
discussion is restarting a
> "Nikolaus" == Nikolaus Rath writes:
Nikolaus> On Aug 28 2015, Ian Jackson
wrote:
Nikolaus> [ things about the menu system ]
Nikolaus> This really has become a farce. This issue been open for
Nikolaus> more than a year. Sam rephrased the entire issue earlier
Nikolaus>
On Friday 28 August 2015 16:06:45 Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
[snip]
> I think apparmor is a fine example: the maintainers of apparmor do
> maintain the apparmor-profiles package which collects apparmor profiles
> for packages that don't ship them (or that ship outdated or broken
> ones). This give
On Friday 28 August 2015 13:27:54 you wrote:
> On Friday 28 August 2015 16:06:45 Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > I think apparmor is a fine example: the maintainers of apparmor do
> > maintain the apparmor-profiles package which collects apparmor profiles
> > for packages that don't shi
Hi.
Your recent post to Ian is inappropriate and not consistent with the
rules of conduct we've established for our communication.
Multiple members of our community have talked to you about this issue.
Please stop.
owner@bugs and listmaster copied, although I will not request any
specific action
On Thursday 27 August 2015 18:11:56 Ian Jackson wrote:
> So the real dispute is: should the existing application metadata
> database (currently represented by the Debian trad menu files in
> existing packages):
>
> (a) continue to be maintained in its existing file format
>
> (b) be translated
On 28/08/15 19:22, Sune Vuorela wrote:
On Thursday 27 August 2015 18:11:56 Ian Jackson wrote:
(c) be destroyed.
Given that there are people who want to maintain it, I think (c) is
unacceptable.[1]
Unfortunately, the people who wants to maintain it are not the same people who
has to carry
hi.
Keith and I hashed out proposed changes to option D on IRC.
Unless there are significant concerns raised by TC members, I plan to
call for votes on the following ballot next Tuesday.
Whereas:
1. The Debian Policy Manual states (§9.6) that 'The Debian menu
package provides a standar
On Aug 28 2015, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> "Nikolaus" == Nikolaus Rath writes:
>
> Nikolaus> On Aug 28 2015, Ian Jackson
> wrote:
> Nikolaus> [ things about the menu system ]
>
> Nikolaus> This really has become a farce. This issue been open for
> Nikolaus> more than a year. Sam
Ian Jackson writes:
> * Overall, this would make it possible, therefore, to maintain the
>menu information primarily in the more sophisticated .desktop
>format, so that source packages with .desktop files would not need
>to contain trad menu files too.
Yes, the wording that Sam and
21 matches
Mail list logo