On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 07:24:35PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > But, basically, you don't need to waste time getting permission for doing > this: if it's the right thing to do (and a superficial study seems to > indicate that it is) just go ahead and do it.
Well, discussing it on -policy has already introduced a fairly significant change. So, it doesn't seem like it's a waste of time in that sense. Personally, I'd've thought policy was the exact list to discuss this on and get consensus: it's implementation of a technical change that effects a number of packages and has a real need to be documented (since not having it documented has caused all sorts of tasks to be created which shouldn't be tasks). I've been hoping to use policy as a canonical list of things packages are required to do to be released for woody, too. That was the whole MUST/SHOULD/MAY thing. And it seems like an ideal thing for policy to be doing: where better to put technical requirements for Debian packages? I'm amazed that -policy is (has become?) so arduous for such things. I'm amazed that people would rather give up on working out a consensus and just have me dictate whatever I think. I'm fairly sure that's not how things worked when I joined. I'm fairly sure the old way was better. Eventually I'll probably troll the archives and see if I can make up some statistics to see. Should I (do I have to?) fork policy and have a "ajs-official-release-policy-and-errata.deb" or something? I would like to have a fairly precise (and accurate) list of which bugs deserve RC bug reports for woody, by the end of next month and random other policy for the release (eg optional packages not conflicting, and packages not depending on lower priority packages, and packages being consistent across architectures and such). Is debian-policy really unsuitable for that? If so, what is it suitable for, exactly? (No, none of those questions were merely rhetorical) 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)
pgpV8mlmFV5kr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
