On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 04:25:05PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 05:42:34PM -0300, Henrique M Holschuh wrote: > > I second this proposal, on the condition that patches are sent to the BTS > > (or NMUs are made) so as to avoid the possibility of packages being left out > > of woody due to the surge of RC bugs this proposal will generate. > I will take personal action if necessary to ensure that no packages get > left out of our release due to this policy, just as I did with the > app-defaults policy. (I did about 14 NMU's to get unmaintined packages in > line with the existing app-defaults policy.)
If you're going to do the NMUs anyway, why not just work with the current policy and file normal bugs against the packages, and then NMU them if they're not fixed? Raising this to a "must" doesn't seem to buy anything at all, at the risk of declaring packages unsuitable for release for no benefit to anyone at all. Alternatively, what benefit would anyone see if dosemu, nethack, etc were removed from woody tomorrow? Hrm. The shared library libfoo/libfoo-dev/libfoo-bin split stuff is also just a "should", and it suffers from the fact that if you don't split them then people won't be able to successfully upgrade when a new version of the library comes out (they'll be forced to remove the old library, and thus break any local programs that use it). Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.'' -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
