On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 01:54:59PM +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?
No, I mean that a complete consistency in the set of 10K packages is
practically impossible to achieve, let alone sustain. And then there's
always situations where it seems wrong to demote all non-default
alternatives to extra just because there has to be a default.
We can and should strive towards the goal, but insisting on that this must
be done is not a particularly productive use of anyone's time and makes
the Policy Manual more an idealist rather than a prudent document, and that
is not in its scope.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
