From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Paul Schmidt Subject: Re: proposal: add "packagers" field (list of strings (names)) to package definition Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 19:43:23 +0100 Message-ID: <565F3BCB.1040309@gmx.net> References: <565D565C.4030208@gmx.net> <87zixtezjy.fsf@igalia.com> <565F0768.2030209@gmx.net> <87r3j4g789.fsf@igalia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34709) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a4CNw-0007le-D2 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2015 13:44:13 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a4CNt-0006HP-69 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2015 13:44:12 -0500 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.19]:63357) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a4CNs-0006HE-T6 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2015 13:44:09 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87r3j4g789.fsf@igalia.com> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Andy Wingo Cc: guix-devel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 12/02/2015 05:12 PM, Andy Wingo wrote: > If there are other ways we can recognize people's work, we should > consider them :) Think of it this way though, a packager is a > person who packages. The value is in the verb, not the noun; > packaging is an ongoing process. We should reward the process, via > NEWS, and perhaps in other ways. > > Besides, no one wants to be the person that removes a name from a > list of a package's packagers! Why remove a name that made it into the list ever? Did the package packagers package packages somewhere in the past or didn't they (or contributed to packaging packages - contest: What sentence can include the most occurences of "package" and still make sense)? Like I said in the other reply: It's just a proposal to ponder a bit. Maybe it does make sense, maybe it doesn't. To me it still seems it does .. Flo - -- https://fps.io -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWXzvLAAoJEA5f4Coltk8ZHTwIALSvOUmeZysjHbu9TDM8z7LK KFMJIlf0fe7bmVn/O8ynTiKbPHS3MF9xmNBADPdilQ/dIs7AgZkvaoQxoIogTFjP ImM1HFiaTV1RagRv+0f+zKD3s16+duDtBKEdu5wcIUVtOl1pmtaO8sNeXLvRnjFB ZTUxqy/s4/OhsH3XA/IbbXBUc/9uzgunNynQTAyakXvH3VhOdj1jFQxaMU4EfcwI aF3Q9TVJDAw3kGH6r8eKXLte90d2GZpScNCZ7PSN1KOkYjao3QBoKDyn/jD57wbv Uf3N245gf55BAj38LCe64O3gXbgT4TNiCWeRMMJ5gPuyF4QYPzXudDEQ8vyc9+c= =4e0U -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----