On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 08:53:33PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:50:40PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 08:28:30PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > If you interpret "The ABI" as "Any property of the binary that another > > > package could conceivably depend on" then your position makes sense. But > > > since nobody would interpret it that way, the obvious conclusion is that > > > "The ABI" means "The supported ABI". Attempting to codify this more > > > precisely would just encourage language lawyering, which is exactly what > > > we were trying to avoid when we generated this policy. Use common sense. > > > > > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-November/159819.html > > Really. Use common sense. You appear to be the only person who's > strongly confused on this issue. http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-November/159715.html http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-November/159781.html http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-November/159826.html As we're just covering ground that's already been covered at this point, I'm going to stop replying -- the offer is still open in the fesco ticket if you/they would like me to work on the wording of the policy. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpoOZwnOeuku.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
