[repo-coord] Re: Blackmailing ... (was: Zero-tolerance educational methods for promoting questionable policies???)

[Dag Wieers]

On Thu, 6 May 2004, Jeff Pitman wrote:

> On Thursday 06 May 2004 17:43, Dag Wieers wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 May 2004, Bert de Bruijn wrote:
> > > Am I right in my observation that you put this off as "the
> > > solution depends on a common naming/versioning of kernel module
> > > rpms" ? There's got to be a more creative solution to this. Please
> > > break the circle.
> >
> > A common naming/versioning is all I ask. Given the history on that
> > subject I don't think I'm being difficult here.
> 
> Is there a way to conduct a poll?

Here are the results of the poll ;)

	Kernel module naming:

	Everybody is using kernel-module naming, except Axel. He said he'd 
	be willing to, but released new packages that didn't follow it.


	Kernel module versioning:

	Everybody is using the put-kernel-version-in-name-tag, except 
	Matthias and me. There are some objections we'll have to resolve.
	That's an internal discussion as we don't need another discussion 
	in public.


If there's a common name for packages, you know what you can and cannnot 
obsolete. And people know what they can and cannot do if the want to be 
compatible.

Claiming someone is incompatible while there isn't a common standard is 
funny. Because the cause of incompatibility can be at both sides.

--   dag wieers,  dag at wieers.com,  http://dag.wieers.com/   --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]