On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 07:59:50PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > Whereas you and Raul seem to suggest (please correct me if I am wrong): > > 1. Make informal decision about something OR make decision and change policy > to allow old and new way. > 2. Wait until enough packages follow the new way. > 3. Change policy again to make recommendation obligate. > 4. File bug reports fast. > > This seems to have two problems: First, it creates more overhead > (you have to change policy twice). Secondly, it doesn't speed up the > transition, because less people will feel compelled to chnage their > packages to comply with the new policy, so you will have less packages > complying to the new way the time you make it an obligation.
This discussion is degenerating, in my opinion... [But, yes, your characterization is reasonably accurate. Consider the a.out -> elf transition as an example where this sort of change has been completed. Consider the libc5 -> libc6 transition as an example of where this sort of change is still in process.] About the problems you mentioned: [1] overhead, in terms of policy edits, is nothing compared to overhead in terms of user grief -- nor is the effort of changing policy a couple times (first to insert new text, later to delete old text) a sufficient reason for abandoning the current debian goal of more rapid releases. [I realize that the "rapid release" goal creates a certain amount of "pressure", but I don't think that abrupt policy change are the right way to address this issue. And personally, if I thought abrupt transitions were the way to go, I'd be urging that we base the next release of Debian on Red Hat 6.0.] [2] It's not right for the policy group to make people feel compelled to change their packages based purely on administrative convenience. If the policy group can put forth well reasoned arguments urging the transition, if people agree to these, that's a good kind of urgency. But urgency because packages have been declared buggy? There's got to be a better reason than that. [Mind you, that "declare packages buggy" option still is open to the policy group, via the technical committee -- or in urgent circumstances via the leader. But I've not seen anyone argue that this current fsstnd->fhs /usr/doc/ issue has that kind of importance.] [In my opinion..] -- Raul
