Re: Debian Weekly News - August 10th, 1999
"Ivan E. Moore II" <rkrusty@tdyc.com> writes:
> > > Sorry, but I'm *definitely* not going to change debmake to "not follow
> > > policy yet" because then it would violate policy.
> > >
> > > If you want to follow Wichert, use debmake from slink.
> > > If you want to follow current policy, use debmake from potato.
> > >
> > > You decide.
> >
> > Excuse me, but I think attitudes like this are severely damaging for
> > the Project. I now suddenly understand why someone resigned recently.
>
> If we want to not follow policy..then we need to change policy. If we
> don't...then what's the point of creating a policy in the first place?
Policy *is* being changed. There have been countless discussions on
the debian-policy mailing list on how to best implement the /usr/doc
-> /usr/share/doc transition, but a consensus was not reached.
The Project Leader has requested the Technical Committee for a
proposal on how to handle the /usr/doc -> /usr/share/doc transition,
and has requested not to use /usr/share/doc pending the Technical
Committee decision.
I find it a sign of disrespect to simply ignore the Project Leader's
request and use /usr/share/doc anyway, and, moreover, to encourage
others to use /usr/share/doc as well by uploading a version of debmake
that uses /usr/share/doc.
Yes, policy should be followed.
No, policy should not be followed blindly without some common sense.
- Ruud de Rooij.
--
ruud de rooij | ruud@ruud.org | http://ruud.org
Reply to: