From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz>
Subject: Re: 06/15: gnu: wesnoth-server: Rename package to
	the-battle-for-wesnoth-server.
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 12:36:49 +0100
Message-ID: <87tvfoo8fi.fsf@ambrevar.xyz>
References: <20190326131842.7363.84034@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org>
	<20190326131845.1B177209E3@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org>
	<87zhph1y9s.fsf@nckx> <87pnqd4qb3.fsf@elephly.net>
	<87imw5irc1.fsf@bababa.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
	<20190326175303.GA6723@jurong> <87a7hgfu7f.fsf@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
	micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:58847)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mail@ambrevar.xyz>) id 1h96rV-00041h-8G
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 07:36:54 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mail@ambrevar.xyz>) id 1h96rU-0003Kg-8g
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 07:36:53 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87a7hgfu7f.fsf@gnu.org>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>, Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ludovic Court=C3=A8s <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> I agree with Ricardo that prior discussion would have been necessary.  I
> think it=E2=80=99s now clear that this case does not fall under the
> =E2=80=9Cnon-controversial=E2=80=9D category that =E2=80=98HACKING=E2=80=
=99 mentions.

Sorry about that, I couldn't foresee the controversy before it happened :p

=2D-=20
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEUPM+LlsMPZAEJKvom9z0l6S7zH8FAlybYFEACgkQm9z0l6S7
zH+IsAf/ajxwGuGWA8jSSAn0ocNr8K830ICZJuL8Wq+V3a4K1dye9p4bZzWmL+wT
o/MZ81HE5N5uT8JkfOaQdcIhlk6E/yRBJlRTZZSA7EErpeYDH95tzOxFIEO3I2o/
K/BmUvDEr0VGJ9flcachayUbW3Y2MhLS9CKTN2DnNDd4WBEb5KYnb2EiuCjRPf+m
g0gtRIlXWUOAvsRkesFsfJjVrUV7w9hbdvmQU0J2RnYQu98ksiWWIqHvbp4+j+Q0
BNbmFEVI8JJplsNWSBVV27dbbuM7vVN0WK9O06K82G5ASXSJpPZNjPheFWsXe4M1
H849kNHS/3GTKlHazZT1h6FhFwWeOw==
=qCsg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--