[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#620109: marked as done (Policy §3.5 (on Pre-Depends) does not reflect actual practice)

Your message dated Thu, 1 May 2014 22:08:43 +0200
with message-id <20140501200843.GA16264@yellowpig>
and subject line Re: Bug#620109: Policy §3.5 (on Pre-Depends) does not reflect actual practice
has caused the Debian Bug report #620109,
regarding Policy §3.5 (on Pre-Depends) does not reflect actual practice
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
620109: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=620109
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.1.0

Raphael Hertzog wrote[1]:

> It has been discussed on -release, not on -devel:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2011/02/threads.html#00381
>
> (I don't think it matters much given that all important stakeholders where
> involved)

No strong objection from me.  I guess that suggests we should change
policy §3.5 at the same time (to permit discussion of Pre-Depends on
debian-release as an alternative to debian-devel, for example)?

[1] http://bugs.debian.org/619186

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 05:05:15PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 03:33:25PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > 
> > > The reason
> > > we request peer review of Pre-Depends is that they have a cost and should
> > > not be abused.
> > 
> > Okay.  That's not what policy §3.5 says; it does not say Pre-Depends should
> > or must be peer-reviewed or that one should examine all aspects when adding
> > them but simply that there should be
> > 
> >  (1) a discussion on debian-devel, and
> >  (2) a consensus that adding this particular Pre-Depends is a good idea.
> 
> I think the policy is correct. I would favor keeping the current wording.
> As you can see in the debian-devel archive, a lot of developer misunderstand
> what Pre-Depends actually do and adding spurious Pre-Depends can be quite
> disruptive to the upgrade path. Hence the need to refer to debian-devel for
> review. On the other hand, making the requirement more stringent would be
> too bureaucratic (sometimes Pre-Depends are necessary and should be used).
> 
> So I would favor closing this bug, if nobody object.

Accordingly, I close this bug.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here.

--- End Message ---
Reply to: