Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You do have a tendency to jump to untenable positions. Who said
>> that we shall remove all packages with bugs or all packages that
>> fail to follow policy?
Raul> You made an ambiguous statement. You made a statement about how
Raul> policy should have more "power", for instance without really
Raul> saying what that means.
Mea Culpa. I just want a statement somewhere that says, by
and large, Debian packages Must follow the policy, with the exception
that packages may, at the developers discretion, be in violation
pending an amendment to a relevant section of the policy documents.
In other words, a flaw in policy need not be followed, but
that means that active steps be taken to amend the flaw in policy.
Failure to conform to policy is reason enough for a bug report
(this is the case in Ian's proposal as well); in case the policy is
under discussion, the bug may remain open, or be ``forwarded'' to
debian-policy.
Raul> [Aside: I interpret your "You do have a tendency..." statement
Raul> to mean that I should have responded an earlier criticism of
Raul> yours which I thought had no merit.
Umm, no. I did not mean that. I don't even know what you are
referring to here.
Raul> I'd really rather not waste the time of the other debian
Raul> developers on personal criticisms, but it looks like to achieve
Raul> this I'll have to discuss the one you raise
Raul> point-by-point. *sigh*]
Umm, please address personal criticism to me by personal mail,
if you wish not to waste the lists time. We may be able to work
things out, though I feel we are in the middle of major
miscommunication.
Raul> Let's say someone writes a program which runs packages through a
Raul> series of tests and reveals a bunch of policy violations in many
Raul> packages. What does the iron-clad rule do for us here?
>> As with other bugs, we file bugs, and we can say that fix 'em, for
>> they violate policy. There is no debate as in "Show me where it
>> says we follow policy". And "Well, policy is bunkum anyway, I am
>> closing this report".
Raul> I don't understand why you think this is going to be a problem.
Well, I think if one is not constrained to follow policy, nor
required to do so, I see no reason to actually follow policy. Why is
it so bad to require policy to be followed?
manoj
--
"I have been poor and I have been rich. Rich is better." Sophie
Tucker
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
