On 31/10/13 16:47, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 04:14:48PM +0100, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> I can't attend the meeting this week. Also it seems to me IRC meeting
> is not the best option for everyone. Not all of us can join in the
> evening (or even worse night).
The FPC needs to be able to discuss this "in person" because it's
contentious and we need to convince enough FPC members that the alternatives
won't work. Doing that over email could be done but we'd need to take one
topic, discuss it to death, and record on a separate page what the pros and
cons of each proposal to fix the topic was. Then move on to the next
mschwendt has also very accurately noted that getting a majority of FPC
members to weigh in on topics via email has been hard (my guess is because
etiquette is to not do +1/-1 in email or write short "What do you think
about this one-line proposal?" emails and that's very necessary when working
on these things so that we can establish what people are actually okay with).
OTOH, there are a number of non-controversial points to clarify in
guidelines. We could probably go through those on the mailing list.
I think the last time I posted a long punch list of issues I made the
mistake of mixing controversial nad non-controversial subjects so it wasn't
easy to discuss just the easy, factual and stylistic changes needed.
I agree it's hard to follow conversation about so many paragraphs. It
would be doable to discuss the problematic paragraphs. I'm afraid not
many users or packagers will attend fpc meetings, so their views are not
heard at all and they might have different and usefull views.
> I add my comments to some question marks on Toshio's draft
> Current draft is well written and should be usefull also for SCL
> beginners. My biggest concern here is the naming propose. I don't
> want to create such big incompatibility between downstreams. It would
> mean much more work for all interested parties, maybe changes in
> scl-utils. I'm not sure why it's needed in this format. Could someone
A prefix is necessary to make the scl packages unique from non-scl packages.
I did mention that the downstream naming was wrong and would need to be
changed a long time ago. At the time I heard that people were resistant to
scl- as a prefix but might be okay with $vendor-. I've been working to see
if the latter would make sense.
packaging mailing list