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.

  Nikhil>  Yes, fair enough ... but whether the revision field is mandatory
  Nikhil> or optional isn't likely to make that much difference to
  Nikhil> recognition, is it? 

I think it does.

  Dirk> We should have version numbers, upstram or intrinsic in the case of
  Dirk> Debian-only packages, followed by a revision field.
  Nikhil>  IYHO? :-)

Whose opinion do you think I represent? My mothers? Of course IMHO.

  Nikhil>    WHY DO WE NEED TO PARSE FILENAMES WHEN DPKG CAN MANAGE WITHOUT
  Nikhil> DOING SO?

I can answer that (even without shouting) quite easily: dpkg isn't the only
program that needs to parse this. Think about dftp for example, or some
scripts that Jane Doe might write for herself on her computer as a perl
exercise. We could of course require a PhD for parsing our numbers...

  Nikhil> If you'd read to the end of Erick's sentence, he pointed out that a
  Nikhil> maintainer could add the optional revision field for just one
  Nikhil> release if necessary and then remove it when the version number
  Nikhil> increases.

No, as David Engel and myself independently answered to Miquel. You should
stick to one, and only one, concept of numbering.

  Dirk> Exactly. It already *is* a revision field. So why is it so difficult
  Dirk> to call a revision field a revision field?
  Nikhil>  NO IT IS NOT A REVISION FIELD!!!

No, even if you shout. I think some four, five years ago I saw a GNU document
that explained what a, b and c are for in their a.b.c numbering.  Ian, to
continue the example, uses his third digit for the meaning of their third
digit: for minor fixes. Revisions, to use another word. Or patchlevels if you
wish. That is the same: changes not being to increase b. But we are splitting
hairs here. You can call those patchlevels if you like, it mounts to the same
concept.

  Nikhil> Look, this is getting heated, and not achieving much.

No, you are heating yourself up. That is different.

I think I made my point now. I would appreciate it if others could join the
debate. Maybe we could even have a "poll" or a "vote"?

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