Re: Intent to package: debian-keyring
Hi,
>>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net> writes:
Dale> On 20 Apr 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I agree that there there well may be exceptions to the individual
>> directives in the Policy; in which case I think the exceptions
>> (when known) should be noted in the policy. This has the added side
>> effect of helping clarify the directive itself, and to determine
>> the scope, and it shall help to determine whether an exception to
>> the policy should apply to ones own package.
Dale> Every policy item should have both a rule for its exception, as
Dale> well as a clear definition of the "severity" that may be
Dale> assigned to it. This helps with those trying to decide how the
Dale> policy item effects their particular package, and provides
Dale> suggestions on how to prioritize bugs reported against that
Dale> policy item.
Hmm. I agree about the exceptions, if any. The severity idea
sounds interesting, though I think it should be evaluated more
thoroughly. It may require the Policy document to be totally
re-evaluated; I would tend to think that policy should be most MUST
directives, with a very few SHOULDs thrown in.
>> People have been recently railing at the policy manager for taking
>> unilateral decisions; but any package manager flouting the policy
>> is doing exactly the same. No one is infallible. I would much
>> rather have any exception discussed and added to the Policy manual,
>> rather than undermine the Policy document by condoning violations.
>>
Dale> You speak of "flouting" policy with reguard to maintainers who
Dale> are simply trying to "do the right thing" in the face of an
Dale> intractible policy statement. Why is there advantage in
Dale> depicting your fellow maintainers as potentially spoiled and
Dale> flippant brats?
You are the one putting value judgements on our fellow
developers. I can not control how you interpret messages. In absence
of a more explicit attack on my part, I think this is your problem.
If policy is indeed broken, we should e fixing this. Have you
put in a word asking for policy to be changed vis a vis the stripping
issue? No, you chose to defy policy rather than ask for an exception
to be inserted.
Why do you say that the policy is intractable? Policy did
change wrt the ldconfig issue. It could have been faster, but the
whole debate was clouded by statements and counter statements for the
longest time.
I think policy is intractable to a large extnet because people
tend to ``fix'' policy locally for their packages rather than getting
it fixed generally. My impression may not eb shared by other people.
>> By the way, I do not think I am alone in regarding the Policy as a
>> standards document; a quick (informal) poll on IRC showed a wider
>> accord (for what it counts for).
>>
Dale> Folks with time on their hands tend to support measures that
Dale> control the group for the betterment of all without reguard to
Dale> the desirablility of such controls by those who have it imposed
Dale> upon them. (sorry for the tangled sentance)
So anyone who disagrees with your point of vierw has too much
time on their hands, and is busy poking their noses into other
peoples affairs while they atand martyrted by? This is hilarious.
manoj
--
Our business is run on trust. We trust you will pay in advance.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: