The debian-private mailing list leak, part 1. Volunteers have complained about Blackmail. Lynchings. Character assassination. Defamation. Cyberbullying. Volunteers who gave many years of their lives are picked out at random for cruel social experiments. The former DPL's girlfriend Molly de Blanc is given volunteers to experiment on for her crazy talks. These volunteers never consented to be used like lab rats. We don't either. debian-private can no longer be a safe space for the cabal. Let these monsters have nowhere to hide. Volunteers are not disposable. We stand with the victims.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Guidelines docs on ftp.debian.org.

Dirk Eddelbuettel writes:

>I think we should have a revision field. I see the following advantages
> 
>	* consistency as all our package names will look similar; this is
>	  quite a goal for a distribution 

As you note below [err, I've deleted it], there's already lots of
inconsistency in version numbering schemes, however.

>	* easier handling for parsing etc

Sorry to keep banging on about this, but I don't see what parsing is
needed.

>	* safer design: I use -revision on debian-only packages because I 
>	  know how easy it it to screw in the package *management*, as 
>	  opposed to the package *content*. Why should I increase the
>	  version number if the content hasn't changed but only the
>	  packaging?

I don't see why this should be anything other than a per-maintainer
decision.

Yes, I'm opposed to making the revision field compulsory.  If there's
a compelling technical reason for doing so then fair enough, but if
the only reasons are aesthetic then I have to say that it quite
strongly offends my sense of aesthetics - the point being that
different people have different tastes.

ttfn/rjk