-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 21-06-2005 23:17, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> the way you worded it, it basically sounds like any use of debconf > pre-seeding a policy violation... but i don't think that is true. Thanks for clarifying. We seem to disagree. (not that I see *any* use of debconf preseeding as policy violating, but when done by maintainer scripts of other packages, yes). >>>you seem to be saying "this is broken, we need it fixed." >>> >>>and others seem to say "yes, we know, but we have other priorities right >>>now." >> >>Maybe I'm just blind, but I never realized the "yes, we know, but" part. > > > here's one: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-edu/2005/05/msg00304.html That one says "yes, we know this can be better - but it isn't broken". What I can't find is "yes, we know this is broken". >>>without *providing* and alternative, re-stating the issue will not solve >>>it. > > > >>If we all agree to what is the problem, you are right: there is no need >>to re-state it. > > > simply restating a problem will not convince anyone, either. I agree. And believe this discussion have not included statements simply repeated. > i don't know anyone involved in CDDs who doesn't wish we had better > tools to deal with these situations... Sure. But some of them place only things inside Debian that follows the guidelines. - Jonas - -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ - Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCuK52n7DbMsAkQLgRAtNtAJsHtqYJcn5r0iRVu1AjKzysQmwrnQCdG7aO jMJKK3mxdxNeVDcYOjffsso= =OBRf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
