Tom spot Callaway wrote: > But we're not even aware that there is a dispute, when people just > decide not to follow the guidelines. There is no "Packaging QA" > group, constantly auditing spec files. Wouldn't that be something that a reviewer could bring up? Say I review a package with static libs and the submitter says "I don't care about the guidelines, I'm packaging them anyway for $reason." ($reason may be >= 0). If I can't persuade the submitter to change their view or at least document the reasoning, I can simply not approve the package. Then it doesn't get in at all (unless some other reviewer chooses to ignore the guidelines as well). I can also bring it up here and then it'll be in the eyes of other maintainers. It may end up being one of those corner cases that lead to clearer guidelines. Or maybe it will just lead to others noting that the submitter should use better reasoning. (Or maybe it will just lead to a never-ending debate. ;) If no one even notices that the guidelines aren't being followed by a package, then the problem might not be such a problem at all. There are a lot of other things that rank higher on the priority list, I'm sure. -- Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Many questions are unanswerable. Many answers are questionable.
Description: PGP signature