On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 01:25:35PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > > I second the clarifying paragraph. I object to changing to "should". > > We must fix the wrong priorities once and forever, and keep them sane > > sane from release to release. If the *current* ftpmasters have not > > achieved this goal yet, I can't imagine how much they will care if we > > downgrade this to a simple "should". That will only ensure that we will > > never have sane priorities. > > Um, as opposed to the current situation, which is essentially the same, just > silly too? > > That "rule" in the Policy Manual is simply unenforceable, one set of > ftpmasters or another.
By "unenforceable" you mean that ftp.debian.org do not allow NMUs? > There's no reason to try to make a point of it. My point is that if we can't achieve this "must" being a must, then there is something fundamentally wrong in the way we maintain the override file and we should fix it, instead of giving up.
