On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 15:10:51 +0200, Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 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.
Are you arguing that we should then give up having policy at
all, since it is all futile?
> 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.
Ah. But policy never insists on anything. Policy just is. It
defines the rules that allow invariants to be maintained by packages
in Debian that allow for closer integration or improve end user usage
patterns. Policy does not have an enforcement arm.
Now, arguing that policy is toothless, since it does not have
a jack booted enforcement arm, and thus should never contain any must
statements leads, in my opinion, to a degradation of the quality of
distribution.
manoj
--
Date: 30 Jun 90 21:11:02 GMT From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randal
Schwartz) for("hacker","Perl","another","Just"){substr($x,0,0)="$_
";}substr($x,-1,1)=",";print$x
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
