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

Bug#573745: Python Policy Update

> Let us state it out loud: this was a huge achievement, and we're
> happy something has moved in the right direction; but please also note
> that the updated process was not lead by the current Python maintainer,
> but from (at that time) and external person, that only after his work
> gained the status of co-maintainer of python-defaults.

Since I'm that person, I'll comment on this.

First, I think it would have been silly to do a python-defaults upload just to 
add me to uploaders.  There was no point in uploading it until there was some 
worthwhile technical content to upload, so the entire business about being an 
external person is odd at best.  

Second, due to the unfortunate social history in Debian Python it was my 
belief then and now that the same policy update would have failed if Matthias 
were the lead for it.  It would be a mistake for anyone who didn't see all the 
various inputs to the update to make any assumptions about how much of the 
update was or was not influenced by any particular person.  

I know a lot of people don't like that much of the communication was in 
private, but I think it's better to have the update that we now have than to 
continue the previous gridlock.

With respect to:
> * There is no consensus on use of the XS-Python-Version header. The
>    Python maintainer promotes a "current" keyword, which several people
>    think has no semantical value.

This is resolved.  The current Python Policy says:
> The keyword "current" has been deprecated and used to mean that
> the package would only have to support a single version (even
> across default version changes).

It would be useful if the discussions about disagreements would focus on 
issues that have not already been resolved.

Scott K

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: