On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 12:41:09AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Jordi Mallach wrote: > > Downstream health > > > > Upstream health > > > > Community > > > > Security > > > > Privacy > > > > Documentation > > I don't think these are very useful criteria, unless they lead to > actual technical issues/benefits. Which can then be discussed on > technical and/or quantified grounds rather than advocacy grounds.
Why wouldn't these be useful criteria? Why limit something purely to technical choice? Debian has a social contract for instance. Debian is more than just pure technical choices. Further, several items above can be quantified and do have an effect on distribution stability. Think of e.g. upstream health. If upstream is not very active, it'll have an impact on how much effort you'll have to spend on it. When deciding on a dependency it is more than just something technical, you'll have to take into account the entire impact of the decision. Summarizing this as "advocacy" is short sighted, IMO. What impact would e.g. upstream have on QA? I think that e.g. Privacy is pretty important bit, why dismiss so easily? (I noticed only now you gave multiple replies) -- Regards, Olav -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140808112745.gc29...@bkor.dhs.org
