Re: Intent to package: debian-keyring
On 20 Apr 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <email@example.com> 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.
I saw no flaw. I interpreted my behavior as being within policy.
> >> 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.
Again, your interpretation is somewhat different than mine. I was
supporting a request for an exemption to the single maintainer rule. As we
already have packages that are maintained in this fashion, I saw no
problem with another exemption.
> 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.
It is my continuing feeling that no limited policy statement can ever be
written to be "right" in every case that it is to be applied. What I am
looking for is either an attitude or an explicit statement in the Policy
Statement, that, under conditions of necessity, there exists the
possibility of exemptions to any "rule" in the Policy Statement. Without
this attitude we are going to continue to have these fruitless
> 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 ;-)
This is one of those that I don't see anything to comment about...
> Every bit of the policy applies to all my packages just as
> much as it does to yours.
Equality of application is always good.
> Better than a thousand pointless words is one saying to the point on
> hearing which one finds peace. 100
We seem to have exhausted the limit some time ago ;-)
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org