Hi,
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:42:20AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> This change was also suggested by Guillem Jover in
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=735840#20 and I tend
> to agree with the logic of grouping upstream related meta-data
> in a single directory.
Quoting this mail:
(As a side note, I'd rather have liked to use something like
debian/upstream/whatever.ext, and was considering filing a bug report,
which could be followed by allowing to have debian/upstream/watch, but
it's probably too late for the latter. :/ )
I wonder in how far it is to late for debian/watch and not for the file
debian/upstream. Yey, I'm aware that we have two to three orders of
magnitude more debian/watch files than debian/upstream files - but how
to know when it is to late or not?
> That said I also agree that this change is mainly a matter of coherence
> and esthetics and thus should not break anything and thus everything
> should support both locations for a long period of time.
Seems we all agree on the esthetics issue but I for myself would think
that *if* we go for esthetics than we should make this strict and
complete or not at all. Otherwise I see no point in wasting developer
time for half baken things.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140210123656.gc6...@an3as.eu
