On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:37:00PM +0000, Neil Williams wrote: > > Can you point to a proposal (on another page) for an alternate format > > that you feel passes these tests?
> A point during the early stage of that wiki page, something similar to > what I currently use for one of my own packages (tslib). > The wiki is probably the main problem - the objective has been lost in > the subsequent edits. It is a significant problem, and indeed the text of the wiki page makes it explicit that the current formulation is not grounded in consensus - there are multiple comments requesting a revert to the overall approach used prior to revision #253. I'm in the process of attempting to address this by migrating this messy discussion into a DEP, as was proposed last December on debian-devel. Results of this should be available in a couple of days. This doesn't at all imply that I'm happy with the current state of the draft in the wiki, I think it needs some drastic improvement before it's going to be widely adopted within Debian. But AFAICS the proposed format has remained largely unchanged even though the wiki draft has gone all pear shaped, and I think that format generally serves the purpose it's supposed to, i.e., to be machine-parseable and human-readable. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
