[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Jackson) writes: > Votes (rankings) [1] so far are: > Ian A, FD, B > Wichert A, FD, B > > I was expecting Bdale and Manoj to have a different view. Manoj, > Bdale, are you going to vote ? Is anyone else on the committee paying > any attention at all ? Please participate, even if only to explicitly > abstain !
Sorry to be slow/late, this has been a very busy week for me at work. FD, B, A. My reason for wanting further discussion is that I'm willing to let the maintainer have some discretion, but believe that it's only reasonable to allow packages to deliver binaries for which the runtime dependencies are not met in some limited set of circumstances, such as perhaps when the binary is peripheral to the main purpose of the package, and/or rarely used, and/or does a good job of providing a useful error message when attempted without the full set of runtime requirements available. This suggests to me that before I'd accept 'A', I'd want some sort of an expression of boundary conditions from the ctte. Any time a maintainer is unclear on the issues or the binary in question doesn't provide good error checking/communication, I fall back on wanting the packaging system to help ensure users have good experiences. Bdale -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
