On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 12:00:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > 3) Once a reasonable number (to be decided, reasonable could also > be nearly all) have moved away from the legal but deprecated > old AA method to the new BB method, policy can be changed to > say BB is legal.
I'm not sure that the number of packages is the key issue here. What I'm
thinking is more that we should change policy to mandate BB at the same
point we would've either:
a) started considering packages with the old Standards-Version:
buggy
b) raised the severity of the bugs to release-critical (as per
FHS and potato+1/woody/tomato -- I'm not trying to suggest
that any/all policy violations are release critical by any
means)
c) actually filed bugs in the first place
Also, things like the `ispell-dictionary' or `build time dependencies'
don't seem to need a transition, so would still "just change".
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.
``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds
pgp9fVoNaCzIc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
