| 1 |
On 17/10/16 14:52, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Monday, October 17, 2016 2:47:00 PM EDT M. J. Everitt wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 17/10/16 14:44, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
| 4 |
>>>> If a binary package is provided in addition to its source-based |
| 5 |
>>>> equivalent, the name of the former should be suffixed with '-bin' |
| 6 |
>>>> for distinction." |
| 7 |
>>> Essentially what I would like to see in policy yes. Though it does not |
| 8 |
>>> address the problem of identifying packages that can be built from |
| 9 |
>>> source, that get put in tree as binary, for what ever reason. |
| 10 |
>> Perhaps you can compile a list of such packages, as I would imagine QA |
| 11 |
>> would be interested as to how 'widespread' this problem really is? |
| 12 |
> That is a good task, but might be seen as finger pointing or tattling. I am |
| 13 |
> already an outcast. I rather let others, at least there is some awareness now. |
| 14 |
I think enough finger-pointing has been done already, and in the absence |
| 15 |
of other interested parties, some action on the part of the concerned |
| 16 |
would either galvanise the point or dismiss the issue as insignificant. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Though not sure what QA can do in the absence of some official policy to |
| 19 |
> enforce, beyond making requests. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
It would be QA's decision as to whether the problem was an issue as |
| 22 |
presented, and warranted some policy being drawn up and enforced. |
Archives