-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 13 November 2003 01:06, Axel Thimm wrote: > IIRC Mike suggested a scheme of the type letter < number, not anything > about the prefixed 0 (I am very grateful that Mike did take his time > to read and answer to the thread, his comments were the only aiming at > a constructive solution!). Mike also discussed it in the public IRC channel, along with other rhatters, including JBJ briefly. I don't recall _any_ of them in favor of using text anywhere other than disttag, where disttag would _not_ be used in the package comparison. > > And while other RHatters did not reply publicly, behind the scenes > > several have gave the thumbs up. I could ask them to confirm on > > list if you really wish. > > I cannot see behind the scenes from where I stand, and most other > people also lack abilities of telepathy, so that doesn't count. RH's > announced policy is to have these discussions in public. The thread > was waiting for input since September, so if people had an opinion, > they had time to express it (in public!). IRC is public. Sorry you weren't there. > > Simultaneously you have ignored the thread on the same list of > > "Warren's Package Naming Guidelines" > > That sounds childish. And if you expect a childish answer, ask > yourself, why you didn't seriously contribute the the disttag thread > and problem instead of diverting into "Warren's drafts". He did seriously contribute. He bunked the idea as I did, he proposed a better solution IMHO, and it was summarily ignored by you and others opposed. > > Instead this same camp took mainly to bickering about the "refusal to > > cooperate" which I later admitted did not belong in that document. > > But still to your attitude, which you enforced and which is > unfortunate and blocking cooperation. Huh? can you try that one in English? Bottom line, I'm getting really sick of the bickering. It seems that repos will never agree on anything, and I see little reason they should anymore. A quick shop around showed at least 4(!) repos carrying the same package, but with different dist-tags. xmms-mp3. 4!! Who's wins if all repos are configured in apt/yum? If there is no effort to minimize duplication, why should anybody care about package naming scheme? I especially find this tiring in the guise of Fedora-Legacy, since we're going to continue using the RH naming scheme, w/out leaking in any 3'rd party schemes which don't really belong. At the very most, we'll add "fl" as a disttag, to indicate that the update came from Fedora Legacy instead of RHN. - -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (http://geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (http://www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (http://geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/s6la4v2HLvE71NURAi6mAJ40whltMb3CDqshoYDQ0CiD9EyRKgCfb0sa gRobX4CeILJcUyQoWsiGfbw= =5puU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
