Re: Bug#367709: Call for vote: gcc: requesting libstdc++.udeb
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#367709: Call for vote: gcc: requesting libstdc++.udeb
- From: Bdale Garbee <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:49:38 -0600
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <list.debian.ctte%20070626024015.GC1814@dario.dodds.net> (Steve Langasek's message of "26 Jun 07 02\:40\:15 GMT")
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <list.debian.ctte%20070626024015.GC1814@dario.dodds.net>
email@example.com (Steve Langasek) writes:
> FWIW, I think it could have been made clearer that choice 2 refers to not
> overruling the maintainer's decision, rather than instructing the maintainer
> not to create the udeb package.
Yes, good point. I'll try to pick better text for votes in the future.
> (but then, if they were sorted I have no reason to think the
> maintainer would have to be overruled).
What was completely lacking in this case was a compelling use case for the
requested feature addition. As I've stated elsewhere, I think there is a
"burden of proof" on anyone requesting a new feature addition like this to
provide such a use case, preferably in the form of working code everyone
involved can evaluate...