Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> > DELAYED DO-NOTHING (the Bad One)
> Honestly, I don't even think this is that bad.
Ok, a couple of other people have said the same thing, and so maybe
it's not so bad. Maybe the best way to deal with the symlink idea is
to make it optional (after potato), and entirely at the developer's
disgression. It's only useful for people doing partial upgrades, so
it's *not* a critical issue (post-potato, anyway).
> Anyway, I think the more important part of this discussion, or at
> least the more controversial part, is whether symlinks/cronjobs/hacking
> dpkg or whatever is even an acceptable measure. Which is why all
> the formal objections irk me.
No, I didn't object to the idea, I objected to the proposal. And by
the way, I don't see *anything* about "five formal objections" in the
policy proposal policy. All I see is that after the discussion
period, if there are no formal objections, and there seems to be
consensus, then the policy *is* adopted. And I've seen people
overlook mere negative comments in the past, and act as if consensus
had been reached, so I wanted something a little more firm (there was
only one formal objection, but a *number* of negative comments on file
when I posted my objection).
--
Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
