[csw-maintainers] package naming conventions for addons to other packages

Peter FELECAN pfelecan at opencsw.org
Fri Oct 29 11:56:43 CEST 2010

Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> writes:

> On 10/27/10, Peter FELECAN <pfelecan at opencsw.org> wrote:
>> Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> writes:
>>> secondly, you invoke "the community": however, "the community" has not
>>> been involved in this. merely a subset of maintainers. not even all
>>> maintainers have authoritatively been polled.
>> Alright then I'm asking for a vote on this issue.
> That is certainly a better course of action, than a subset of
> maintainers having a meeting, that discriminates against other
> maintainers by force of physical location, and then declaring "things
> 'must' change".

The subset that you mention is composed of 2 board members and the most
active/involved maintainers. I agree that the physical location is an
issue but the meeting was covered by a real-time video stream and a very
detailed discussion which was open to participation. If I'm remembering
correctly you haven't participated in that discussion.

> However, you are still not being properly considerate of the full community.
> The "community" affected here, is the ENTIRE OpenCSW community: both
> maintainers *and* users.

I agree that the users are part of the community, in the large sense of
the word, but with regard to maintenance decisions only maintainers has
a vote; moreover, I consider that only the active foundation maintainers
have a voting right.

> Therefore, we should prepare a proper poll that allows for full
> participation of the entire community affected.
> The poll wording needs to also be openly reviewed for some period of
> time, to ensure inclusiveness and fairness.

This is another example of your systematic strategy of drowning a
subject on which you don't agree in noise.

> Are you volunteering to write the initial wording, or are you
> requesting someone else draft it?

Very simple:

Do you, as an active foundation maintainer, agree to relive the current
limit of packages name from the current 20 characters to the 256
characters defined by the current packaging system?

I'm asking all the active foundation maintainers to vote on this issue.

Thank you in advance,

For your information: this is the significant limit as supported by the
packaging system:

 pkginfo tag: NAME

 Text that specifies the package name (maximum length of
 256 ASCII characters).


More information about the maintainers mailing list