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

Re: Intent to package: debian-keyring

>>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net> writes:

Dale> The desire is to create a distribution that installs in the
Dale> smallest disk space possible. I saw that requirement as being a
Dale> smaller one than the functionality requirement, and thus
Dale> "violated" the letter of the policy, while being certain that I
Dale> was supporting the best product I could build.

	Why did you not try to change the ``letter'' of the policy, so
 that it would make things easier for people who may have a
 similar situation in the future? You saw a flaw in the policy, you
 choose rather than to mend this, to ignore policy and worked around
 it, leaving policy broken, at least in some cases.

>> 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.
Dale> Exactly. During that whole debate period we had maintainers who
Dale> "flouted" policy by making their packages functional? I don't
Dale> see it that way.

	No, policy can be broken, or unclear, or not yet
 specified. While policy is being formulated, affected packages
 may indeed do their own thing. What I do not like is statements like
 "As far as breaking policy, Go right ahead." with no effort ebing
 made to bring policy in conformace to correct behaviour.

Dale> We are again seeing this from very differnt perspectives. I see
Dale> the intractibility as coming from statements that insist that
Dale> what is writen in the Policy Statement can not be deviated from
Dale> in the smallest degree.

	If policy is right, that is a good thing. If policy is wrong,
 it should be corrected.  And then followed to the letter ;-) You
 can't just say, well, we all know policy is broken, so there is no
 point in following it.

Dale> My real point was that folks who make the rules often don't
Dale> consider those who will be forced to live under them. I probably
Dale> should make it clear that I have no evidence that this is the
Dale> case here. I was making a generalization.

	I try help make the rules. I am governed by the same
 rules. This is not a case of bloated washington fat cats who are
 totally out of touch with their constituency. We do not have rule
 maker drones versus toiling developer here. We are all in the same
 boat. Singing the ``internationale'' is not quite justified ;-)

	Every bit of the policy applies to all my packages just as
 much as it does to yours.

 Better than a thousand pointless words is one saying to the point on
 hearing which one finds peace. 100
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: