Re: please vote...
Hi,
>>"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_
So?
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.
manoj
--
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
something.
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: