[csw-maintainers] commentary on shared library naming proposal

[Peter FELECAN]

Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> writes:

> On 11/16/10, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski <maciej at opencsw.org> wrote:
>> No dia 16 de Novembro de 2010 14:19, Sebastian Kayser
>> <skayser at opencsw.org> escreveu:
>>> * Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> wrote:
>>>> I will also mention, given that Maciej gave the debian sharedlibs
>>>> policy (section 8.1) as a reference, if we abided by the WHOLE text of
>>>> that section. Again, my further notes on that, are at the bottom of
>>>> the wiki page.
>>>
>>> When it comes to policy vs "when seen beneficial" in this case, I regard
>>> it as helpful to have as few exceptions and as much of a standard as
>>> possible.
>>
>> There's also the question of who is the subject to see the benefit.
>
> "The benefit " is supposed to be for the user, not the maintainer OR
> the release manager. :)
> As far as who determines it before the package is released:
> by definition, the person with the most authority to make that
> decision, is the release manager.

I completely disagree with this: the maintainers provides the work,
respects the domain standards and agreed by the *maintainers*
community. The users benefit form this as upgrades have a better
granularity. The "release manager" is a facilitator for
maintainers. What he is doing in our case is discretionary under the
cover of user community advocacy.

>> Is it the maintainer or the release manager?  What if the two
>> disagree?
>
> Ideally, "the maintainer" should respect the release manager's
> experience in the matter.
> But there's always recourse to the board.

Theoretically. In practice I beg to disagree again... This bring up
another issue: our foundation needs a long due election for renewing the
board, but this is probably better brought up in another thread, that I
agree.

-- 
Peter