Re: Request for policy interpretation: procedure and possible outcomes for naming conflicts
Le Wed, May 02, 2012 at 02:12:22PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder a écrit :
>
> - When policy 10.1 refers to maintainers reporting naming conflicts to
> debian-devel and trying to find consensus about which program is to
> be renamed, is that consensus among the maintainers of the packages
> involved or some other group? In other words, is stonewalling an
> acceptable and viable strategy?
>
> - Policy says that in the absence of consensus, both packages must be
> renamed. A number of people have mentioned that that looks like a
> bad outcome from the users' perspective.
Hello everybody,
I also think that the current policy is not helpful to create consensus, and
can cause to maximise annoyance.
In addition, it has a minor loophole, that after both parties have renamed
their files, a third package can, without noticing, take the name. Keeping a
placeholder solves the problem, but may also complicate local workarounds to
the forced renaming. Perhaps the Policy package could maintain a blacklist of
program names for which no agreement was reached.
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Reply to: