On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 14:53:21 -0600, Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I wrote:
>> ... we won't go on a snippet witch hunt, but we also won't
>> encourage snippets or even really talk about them. That would be
>> my preference.
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> replied:
>> I fail to see how this [argument] substantially differs from the
>> one I already made:
> Well this is good. So we'd agree that, as a practical matter, we
> should not file bugs about snippets, not worry about them, not talk
> about them, and just leave snippet-related issues to the discretion
> of individual package maintainers. This is how I'd describe what
> we've done in the past, so if you think that is a continuation of
> current and historic Debian practice then we agree about that as
> well.
I am glad that the two of you agree, but I am not sure how
that makes a difference. I am one of the people who originally
ratified the social contract, and If I happen to come across a
violation of the DFSG and the social contract, then that is a grounds
for a critical bug; and grounds to have the so called snippet excised
from Debian.
manoj
--
We don't need no indirection We don't need no compilation We don't
need no flow control We don't need no load control No data typing or
declarations No link edit for external bindings Hey! did you leave the
lists alone? Hey! did you leave that source alone? Chorus: (Chorus) Oh
No. It's just a pure LISP function call. We don't need no
side-effecting We don't need no allocation We don't need no flow
control We don't need no special-nodes No global variables for
execution No dark bit-flipping for debugging Hey! did you leave the
args alone? Hey! did you leave those bits alone? (Chorus) (Chorus)
"Another Glitch in the Call", a la Pink Floyd
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
