On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:26:44 +0200, Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>>> @@ -6736,10 +6654,10 @@
>>> This flows from the Release policy. Not specifying /bin/bash in
>>> scripts is not considered a RC bug.
>>
>> Oh Gosh! This _is_ a RC bug. If I change the /bin/sh to point to
>> /bin/dash (and I usually do that) some script will break and this
>> cannot happen since they said, when defining their shell as sh,
>> that they're using just POSIX functionality.
> Indeed, it's a bug, though it's not release critical yet...
>> That kinda of change in policy can decrease the overall quality of
>> packages. Release policy is _wrong_.
> It's an important bug and might become release critical after
> etch...
Is this release policy sanctioned by the release managers, or
are you speculating?
> I don't think it's a good idea to change the policy manual for every
> release to match release RC policy. In current policy it's clear
> that it's a bug that should be fixed in the package and I'm sure it
> will become release critical in a next release...
We have not been modifying policy for every release. We have,
however, been told that policy is buggy, and policy MUST/SHOULD
directives have become unconsistent with practice, so this is a
review of policy to make things better again.
Pretending that this one time review is going to be repeated
for every release is qan unwarranted strawman; no such plan has been
proposed.
Presumably, once we have policy back to "sane" and not
"retarded", future release policies will be crafted in tandem with
policy delegates/ tech ctte.
manoj
--
There's no future in time travel.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
