James Westby wrote: > On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 15:38 +0200, Frans Pop wrote: >> I happened to see a similar bug filed against backuppc. >> >> How many of these bugs have been filed? >> Are you aware of the Debian policy regarding mass bug filing [1]? > > I have filed two (from memory). I am aware of that policy. > >> IMO this is a subject that definitely should have been discussed on >> d-devel _before_ the bugs were filed. > > It was discussed. What sort of resolution would you like before these > bugs were filed? OK. I don't not remember that. A pointer to that discussion would be useful. You only included a link to a Ubuntu web page which is IMO not directly relevant when proposing structural changes in Debian (or at least: does not provide sufficient justification for proposing/applying packaging changes in Debian). > If you mean that discussion of a proposed MBF should have happened then > I'm not sure that what I have done warrants that. Reason I think at least some kind of consensus on d-devel should be reached is that, although only two BRs have been filed now, a lot more packages are affected. IMO this is something where packages should be consistent which makes the change effectively a policy change. > If someone was to collect all of the Ubuntu patches to do this and > submit them at once then it obviously would. However, Ubuntu has only > just changed to something that is acceptable to Debian and so most > packages have not been updated yet. Where was it determined that the current Ubuntu solution is acceptable and desirable for Debian? Was it discussed whether or not such changes are suitable to be applied at this stage of the Lenny release cycle? Cheers, FJP
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.