> OK, then our opinions now are quite close. ldlp,nfs ->README.Debian, > no_? ->error templates. Question now is what to do with successful > blas/lapack diversions. I recommend we follow the output given by a > genuine diversion -- i.e. perhaps skip the note entirely and just spit > out a line to the screen.
That is usually not highly recommended, indeed..:-) > > > atlas3/blas_lapack > > > atlas3-foo/foo_extensions > > > > Well, as low priority notes, they will be unused...and a big burden to > > translators. > > > > OK, so no low priority notes. This info should either be a high > priority note, or a one-line diversion note. At least the former are > only seen once, not on each upgrade. Then if you think that high priority notes are better (or less worse) I'd prefer going for them > > Unfortunately notes have been abused way too much. The datatype was > > originally meant for very cautious use and has been diverted as a > > derivative of package documentation....that's the main point of very > > extreme reaction suggesting the complete removal of notes. > > > > Do you think the user *must* be made aware that installing this > package obviates some other package? Perhaps not. I think that in the case of packages as specialized as atlas3, users are probably expected to read the doc in /usr/share/doc ;.... > Please allow me to ask you one other Debian etch release related > question, as you are much closer to recent developments than I. Are > packages still being kept out of testing if they have problems on any > of the less common of the 11 arches? The buildd mechanism and gcc > quality on some machines has definitely gone down since Sarge, in which > my packages were fully portable across all 11. Must I now remove certain > platforms from the Arch list of the control file to get them into > testing, i.e. that is if I cannot get a timely response from the > buildd systems? I'm afraid that I don't have such answer. From the 11 arches, m68k has been dropped recently and amd64 was added after sarge. But the remaining should be asked to the release team, imho. In short, not much has changed, though.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
