>>>>> "Josh" == Josh Triplett <j...@joshtriplett.org> writes:
Josh> Long-term, I'd like to see that happen. But I'm a huge fan of
Josh> incremental steps; defining the problem as "eliminate
Josh> Essential" makes it both difficult enough and controversial
Josh> enough to make it unlikely to happen at all. Right now, the
Josh> first step is "let's not let the problem get any worse, and
Josh> let's ensure that any new package that might have otherwise
Josh> used Essential must instead get packages to add a dependency".
Josh, my current reading is that there is not support for even the first
step.
I believe Guillem and I have disagreed, and I haven't noticed support
from anyone other than you.
Is there support I'm failing to remember?
I would not attempt to summarize Guillem's concerns.
My concerns are roughly that I think
1) debian-devel consensus is an
adequate block for things getting worse unless there is a good reason
2) I am not convinced that we would (or should) decline to use this
particular hammer if it really is the best tool we have available for a
bind we find ourselves in; nor do I think policy would actually bar us
if we had necessity
3) The benefit I perceive in spending more time trying to figure out
whether I could be convinced that there are no circumstances under which
I'd support a new essential package is less than what I think we'd get
out of it , so I'd rather not spend the time.
In the interest of being constructive:
A) I do support reducing the essential set over time
B) I would support better education of the community about why we should
be hesitant to support essential: yes on debian-devel
C) I'd support non-normative documentation that we don't expect to
approve new essential packages in the future in policy.
--Sam
