Re: Intent to package: debian-keyring
On 20 Apr 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net> writes:
>
> Dale> On 20 Apr 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> The policy is the only standard we have for the distribution; and
> >> standards not followed are sometimes worse than no standards at
> >> all. (This is one of my pet peeves with miscrosoft).
> >>
> Dale> While I could disagree with the other "personal opinions" you
> Dale> have expressed, they were expressed as your personal opinions,
> Dale> and I am willing to leave it at that, but the above statement is
> Dale> simply and completely false.
>
> Oh, so you categorically state that that stement is false? I
> see. Well, I still stand by it. Without the ww policy, and others
> like it, we would not have such a well knit distribution.
Stand by anything you choose. The policy statement, while it declares
other standards as policy does not therefore acquire the status of a
standard. You completely ignore a whole raft of other "Debian" standards
as well, like the DFSG, among others.
The www policy is a new "standard" being designed for Debian. It will
take some time before we can declare that this standard is responsible for
much of anything, let alone the current "well knit distribution".
>
> Dale> Policy is not in my opinion a standard. We DO have important
> Dale> standards that we follow with varying degrees of success, and it
> Dale> is these standards and our attempts to follow them that have
> Dale> made Debian the useful, well integrated, system that it has been
> Dale> for much longer than Policy has existed.
>
> When do you think policy was started? I have a feeling that
> policy was written not very long after Debian become a
> multi-maintainer distribution (yes, there was the golden age
> when there was just one debian maintainer). As we are brandishing
> opinions here., I think I hold to mine that Policy is integral to
> the cohesiveness of Debian.
The Policy Group was begun about the same time as the QA group, and
testing, among others. Outside of Ian's original writing of the
Programmer's guide et al, the current policy documents were created by
this Policy Group.
You can rewrite history all you wish Manoj, but you and I were both there
and should be able to agree on what happened without all this posturing.
>
> Dale> Policy was developed as a tool to aid new developers in
> Dale> understanding the many details of package building and system
> Dale> integration as practiced by the Debian development group. This
> Dale> came about to deal with the large influx of developers that the
> Dale> group has experienced in the last several years.
>
> That it one of the side effects, yes. But the www-standard
> (which is policy), the file system standard (which is also policy)
> and various and sundry things in that document define the OS, and are
> not simplifying things for the new developer (heh).
>
Memory says that the www-standard is, in fact, delineated in a seperate
document that represents that standard. The same is true of the file
system standards, the DFSG, ANSI C, POSIX, and others that I am certain to
have forgotten to mention.
Policy declares the distribution's intention to follow these standards in,
what are sometimes, piecemeal fashion. While I would agree that it is
Debian's policy to follow the FSSTD, the Policy Statement only declares
particular areas of that standard that are implimented by Debian in a
particular way. It has always been a guideline for the implimentation
details as they are done by Debian.
> Dale> Since that time every attempt has been made to elevate policy to
> Dale> some super godhood of unquestioned excellence.
>
> Are you sure you are in a state of mind condusive to a debate?
No, I find the debate boaring in the extreme (not to belittle your
sparkling wit, and superior arguments ;-)
> I am not sure I should waste my time talking to someone who is so
> biased as to relegate an issue of standards-conformance to "super
> godhood of unquestioned excellence." I expected better of you.
>
It is not standards-conformance that I have objected to. It is the
dictatorial attitude about what is written in the Policy Statement. It is
the deman that reasonable thought be executed on the alter of "defined
standards", and the automatic assumtion that a developer is unable to come
to reasonable decisions when confronted with policy that is unsuitable to
the current problem.
> Dale> This is an attitude I don't agree with.
>
> You have that right. There are things in the ANSI C standard
> do not agree with too, and the CORBA spec is a %#$^)$@)(* piece of
> junk. Do our opinions matter?
>
> Dale> Even the Policy Tzar agrees that Policy is a Guideline, he just
> Dale> takes the word to have a stiffer meaning than most reasonable
> Dale> folks.
>
> Tzar? Reasonable folks? Do you count yourself in that number?
Tzar, or reasonable? Sometimes neither, sometimes both...
> I think this does not really merit a response.
I know. You have chosen not to speak to these issues, and they are the
only one I have tried to discuss here.
>
> When you are again amenable to a civil discourse, email
> me. At the moment I see no point in pouring oil on the flames by
> responding to your message.
>
Well, I agree that me stating my position, followed by you stating yours,
with no apparent overlap between the two, is most certainly a pointless
endeavor.
Maybe we can agree on something next week ;-)
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: