Re: non-consensus on debug (-g) policy
>>"Ben" == Ben Collins <email@example.com> writes:
Ben> Deprecated does not mean they have to switch.
This does not supporet making the old method deprecated.
Ben> On top of that, in the current state for some packages it may
Ben> have been very hard to get them _to_ compile with -g in order to
Ben> follow policy.
Irrelevasnt. We require packages to create binaries with
debugging symbols; and even under the new propsal that has to be made
possible. You have made an argument for making both methods be
acceptable, but not for deprecating either one.
Ben> What matters most, is that there was a consenus,
No, there was not. There was at least one objection. I see no
record of the objection being withdrawn
Ben> the proposal has already been forwarded to
Ben> debian-policy. Bringing this up now, after the discussion period
Ben> is already over, is somewhat useless.
On the contrary. I think the proposal should be reverted, and
we need to decide on which of the two forms should go into
policy. The guidelines (which were not folowed) are not rules that
one can hide behind, since reason dictates that a technical
objection has been raised, and needs be answered.
The proposer is supped to keeptrack of the proposal. Yoiu
can't suddenly hide behind ``it is too late now'' defence.
Please revert the proposal to an [AMENDMENT ...] stage.
<SomeLamer> what's the difference between chattr and chmod?
<SomeGuru> SomeLamer: man chattr > 1; man chmod > 2; diff -u 1 2 |
less Seen on #linux on irc
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E