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.

  Bill> I think the only issue still open is the one about requiring
  Bill> -revision parts in package names.  Some people questioned this, I
  Bill> provided backup reasoning, and discussion sort of petered out.
  Bill> 
  Bill> If anyone has more to say, please speak up.

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 

	* easier handling for parsing etc

	* 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?

Don't forget that package numbering isn't even consistent withing the rather
well defined set of GNU programs. I see emacs 19.30 but bash-1.14.6, ie a
scheme a.b.c and a scheme a.b.

I think that dpkg for example, even though it looks like a.b.c, really
numbers as a.b-revision. Whenever Ian overlooks something at compile time (as
opposed to a new major function, ie the jumps from 0.93.x to 1.0.x to 1.1.x),
he increases the last number which hence is a *de facto revision field*. 

So why the heck can't we standardize this? We still have degrees of freedom
between the a.b-rev and a.b.c-rev scheme, no?

--
Dirk Eddelb"uttel                              http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/~edd