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

Re: please vote...

>>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net> writes:

 Dale> Asside from the user having to look in two places during the
 Dale> "transition" what things break if no symlinks are provided? So
 Dale> far I've heard suggestions that package helper scripts will
 Dale> fail because they don't know about the new location. I submit
 Dale> that, under the current policy these scripts are broken, should
 Dale> be bug reported, and should be fixed to comply with

        You did not hear that in the proposal. And you are correct,
 that is a silly reason. 

 Dale> policy...whatever that resolves itself to be. If we are going
 Dale> to allow helper tools to stand in the way of progress, then
 Dale> what kind of help are they anyway? The tools should be improved
 Dale> to handle transition situations like this, rather than
 Dale> requiring global package mods to support the tools through the
 Dale> transition.

        This is a red herring. 

 Dale> Basicly it looks to me like the policy group got the cart
 Dale> before the horse, and mandated conformance without determining
 Dale> any process for the transition. Now the Technical committee is
 Dale> being asked to choose between an unacceptable design and no
 Dale> design in order to resolve the problems greated by the
 Dale> previously, not well thought out, policy change.

        This is not the forum to damn the policy list. We are being
 asked to rule on a proposal. 

 >> From my point of view this is not a technical problem, but a political one
 Dale> within the policy group that can only be resolved there.

 Dale> Manoj, you are asking that we force approval of a proposal that
 Dale> the policy group appears unwilling to pass. There is _no_


 Dale> alternative being proposed by the "opposing side" for the
 Dale> Technical commitee to evaluate, dispite the attempt on your
 Dale> part to outline an alternative.

        Where does it say there have to be more than one proposal for
 the tech ctte to choose? Chapter and verse please. 

 Dale> Finally, Manoj, although I know that this committee is not
 Dale> supposed to become involved in designing solutions, I _must_
 Dale> ask why the obvious solution has not been explored? Mainly
 Dale> modifying the helper packages to handle the transition
 Dale> difficulties. Unless you can give me a different kind of
 Dale> failure, it seems to me that this is the obvious place to
 Dale> perform the fix. Give developers a time scale for the
 Dale> transition, and give the "checker" programs the skill to check
 Dale> both places. After all packages meet the new location standard,
 Dale> the checker programs can "stiffen" their conditions to only
 Dale> accept the new state of affairs.

        Because in the opinion of the majority, and given our track
  record, the transition shall not happen in a release interval

 Dale> In addition, I have heard the argument that requiring all
 Dale> packages to move before the potato release would be
 Dale> impossible. This is a fairly simple fix. I don't use "helpers"

        I think you are unduly optimistic. 

 Dale> in my packages, and I can't see this taking more than 5 minutes
 Dale> per package to impliment. The only "penalty" we would face
 Dale> would be the "massive" uploads of new packages (note that
 Dale> almost no new source uploads would be required), just before
 Dale> the "freeze". On the other hand, it would be a reasonable way
 Dale> to "filter" out a large number of packages based on a simple
 Dale> issue...can you make the transition before the deadline or
 Dale> not. If the package makes the deadline, it is included in the
 Dale> next release, if it doesn't then it will wait for the next
 Dale> release. This just might get the distribution down to a
 Dale> reasonable size ;-) but I suspect that the number of packages
 Dale> that "couldn't" make the deadline would be surprisingly
 Dale> small. (I _must_ be a "prophet" ;-)

        Prophets are often wrong.

 Dale> Anyway, if it isn't clear by now, I stronly suggest that this
 Dale> is not a properly formed question for this committee to get
 Dale> involved with.

        I disagree. The constituion is clear on this point.

 Dale> Either come back with two proposals,

        Justify that request. You may have to have the constituion
 changed while you are at it.

 Dale> thoughtfully argued and presented, or resolve this issue
 Dale> through a vote of the membership. Without at least two
 Dale> proposals to choose from, there is nothing for this committee
 Dale> to decide.

        Rubbish. Please read the constituion before making remarks
 like that.

 Benny Hill: Would you like a peanut? Girl: No, thank you, I don't
 want to be under obligation. Benny Hill: You won't be under
 obligation for a peanut.  It's not as if it were a chocolate bar or
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.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

Reply to: