Re: DEP-5 meta: New co-driver; current issues
Peter Samuelson <email@example.com> writes:
> But if you start talking about "when it's time to approve it" on
> debian-project, the comparison breaks down. Why does DEP-5 need to be
> "approved"? And by whom? Nobody had to discuss and "approve"
> debhelper. Because it's optional. Because nobody is forced to use it.
I would read "approval" in this context as approval by all the people who
are interested in using something like DEP-5. In other words, consensus
that, should one want to do this sort of thing, this is the way in which
we're going to do it, with explicit acknowledgement that some people
aren't interested in doing this sort of thing at all.
For example, I have packages scattered across 10 or 15 different revisions
of the format right now, and I've been waiting on making them all
consistent until we have a format that has reached consensus among the
people discussing it and isn't going to keep changing. I'm also waiting
for consensus on format before changing packages for which I'm upstream to
use this format for their LICENSE files.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>