Le lundi 19 juin 2006 à 12:15 +0200, Andreas Barth a écrit : > Don't you think it might be a good idea to explain the policy better if > it is not understood correctly?
If high-grade developers need explanations, you can't expect the policy to be widely understood in the long term. > Also, please explain why you think "the python transition was going to a > dead end". I cannot see it. Because it is being rushed for the sake of a single person, against the opinion of almost all fellow developers, with a broken building system. > You mean, after we all put time and energy into a discussion, agreed on > some results, and put some more work into the results, you're just going > to tell us that you will ignore all of that? That sounds like a rather > large slap into people's faces. No, I'm telling you that I will ignore *part* of that. The broken part. If it were only for me to decide, I would indeed ignore all of that, because the old policy was better. Remember: the *whole* current situation was created by Matthias Klose and only him. Everybody agreed to migrate to python2.4 before thinking of policy improvements calmly for etch+1. > > Is it really useful? (This is a real question.) Isn't it possible to > > follow it just as easily with a script, avoiding to put cruft where it > > doesn't belong? > > You could claim the same for all information in the source packages file > or the control file. Please don't play with words and show real examples. > A policy becomes also effective when violations of a policy lead to > packages exclusion from the next stable release. So what? Do you want working packages, or do you want packages conforming to a policy? Are you going to exclude dozens of packages just because they are lacking a control field nobody uses? Threats don't lead anywhere. I thought you'd know that. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
