Re: debmake contains namespace pollution and bugs procedure
ian@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) writes:
> 1. A bug report should not be closed unless all the things in the
> report have been addressed. Christoph initially closed this bug
> without addressing the complaint completely. I had to go and
> investigate the latest debmake package to determine whether to reopen
> the bug.
Without knowing of all the correspondence, I suppose it's possible
that Christoph felt he had resolved the problem. It is important to
give maintainers leeway when the issues are less critical, so in some
cases a maintainer might justifiably feel they had addressed the issue
sufficiently without doing things exactly as suggested. Although
given your prior position on this issue, I find it likely that
Christoph knew that he wasn't resolving the dispute.
> 2. If there is a disagreement about a bug report the bug should be
> left open while the discussion about it takes place. Otherwise the
> issue might be forgotten. If people agree with me on this it should
> be made policy.
This is absolutely true.
> 3. This namespace pollution _is_ a bug, and the consensus of those
> commenting on it is that this is the case. All these binaries should
> be renamed to start with a common prefix. I would object to the use
> of the 'dpkg-' prefix. I suggest 'debmk-'.
I agree, this is still a bug. At the very least, no application,
unless it's something *really* central, and probably non-debian
(i.e. make), should have claim to words like todo, build, release,
uscan, and even uupdate (sounds like it belongs in uudeview or
something).
I'm not as strongly opposed to the other names...
--
Rob Browning <rlb@cs.utexas.edu>
PGP fingerprint = E8 0E 0D 04 F5 21 A0 94 53 2B 97 F5 D6 4E 39 30
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: