> Fuck no. You are the one who resorted to bureaucratic
> shennaigans to convince dpkg maintainers to change the way it works,
> rather than trying and convince them that your way is right.
No shenanigans here. The dpkg maintainer says that he wants guidance
from policy. He wrote:
Actually my position is that if harmonisation of output
during install/upgrade is to occur, it should be mandated
by policy.
He did not write "I won't make this change (unless you force me)."
There's quite a difference.
I cannot refute his position, which is clearly stated and not
unreasonable. I _am_ in a position to ask for the policy change
he wants. You have denied that request and directed me to the
Technical Committee. OK, you are within your rights. I guess
I could go and argue my case there.
> Policy is not a way to make other people do what you think is
> right by beating them on the head.
I have no intention of using policy to "beat anyone on the head".
To repeat, the dpkg maintainer _asked_ for policy guidance. That is
why he reassigned #254998 to debian-policy. You reassigned it back
to dpkg on the grounds that there was no "bug" in policy. That is
why I opened #294351 as a _wish_, hoping that there would be no
opposition to a simple and desirable extention of a policy clause.
> Your complaint, really, is that the bureaucrats did not jump up and
> say how high on your command, but insisted that normal channels be
> used to resolve this.
No my complaint is the one I voiced, that the Debian of today can be
bureaucratic. Making simple changes can sometimes be an unnecessarily
long and disagreeable process.
--
Thomas
Hood
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
