Hi On 2/4/14, 5:27 PM, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: > On 05/02/2014 00:34, Xyne wrote: >> Lukas Fleischer wrote: >> >>> Technically, that is correct. However, I am sure there are many other >>> TUs volunteering to be the sponsor after having read the application and >>> the discussion (me, for example). So I don't think it is a problem. If >>> it makes feel anyone better, please run >>> >>> sed 's/David Reisner/Lukas Fleischer/g' >>> >>> on your inbox (the misspelling of Dave's name comes in useful here!) >> >> I'm not opposed to the application (it looks very promising to me). I just >> wanted to mention this issue because there is no point in having by-laws if >> we >> ignore them every time we assume that there is a tacit consensus to do so. >> > > I strongly support that we follow our by-laws. > > If Anatol agrees, Lukas will become his new sponsor and we will continue > to discuss this new promising application.
I am fine with this. > Although it's not strictly recommended (we lack of official > recommendation?), this way works in all cases. Ok, I've updated 14 packages where I found relative path usage. PTAL.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
