On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > I like your proposed alternative. Maybe the policy could say that you > "should" (in the policy sense) thoroughly analyze the consequences and > alternatives before adding pre-depends, and that one way to do so (in > a friendly advice sense) is to ask on debian-devel?
Yes. On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > So, new proposal. Before adding new Pre-Depends, > > A. there should be a discussion on debian-devel or debian-release, > to get eyeballs on the change and spot problems and easier > alternatives; Drop debian-release, it's not a general discussion list. > B. debian-devel or debian-devel-announce should be at least notified, > so other Debian developers can factor it into any plans they have > for changing their own package relationships. I don't think debian-devel-announce is warranted. > In particular, this proposal would drop the requirement of consensus. > Package maintainers generally know what's best; if not, there are > other ways to deal with that (e.g., convincing them, or referring the > issue to the ctte if the maintainer is beyond convincing). Agreed. In general I'm okay with reformulating section 3.5 to make it more obvious why the review on -devel is a good idea. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English) ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110331060311.gc6...@rivendell.home.ouaza.com
