On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 11:43:18AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I don't think policy changes need to be seconded. We have a policy team > > that should decide on what comes in policy and what not. Although, it > > more looks like it's just 1 person doing all the work. > > > I sometimes feel that they go to slow which changing things, and I'm not > > really sure it's a good or bad thing. > > > Some of those currently open bugs against the policy package, like your > > ~ in version numbers, really shouldn't be a problem to get into the > > policy. I don't think anybody has a problem with it. I think it's just > > that no new version of the policy has been made yet. > > Well, policy-process is still shipped with the debian-policy package, and > my experience in the past is that when I follow that process, the changes > go into Policy fairly quickly. Certainly seconding would show that > someone reviewed the wording of my proposed ~ patch and has confirmed that > it sounds like an accurate and implementable description of their > behavior.
Hello, As a debian-policy denizen, I am quick to second proposal I like. However, here this a purely the description of what dpkg do. What matter is whether the text is faithful to the implementation, not whether I like it or not, and i don't feel qualified to vet the text. However, there is at least 2 dpkg maintainers, they are very qualified to check it, and I expected they would second the proposal. If they did not see it, I suggest to forward it to them asking for review and second. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
