Re: conclusion: debian portability, openbsd port
>>"Andreas" == Andreas Schuldei <andreas@schuldei.org> writes:
Andreas> * Stephane Bortzmeyer (bortzmeyer@pasteur.fr) [010308 13:55]:
>> > However, as
>> > someone pointed out, this is not defined in policy anywhere and
>>
>> Not everything needs to be in the Policy. Yes, in theory, it would
>> be nice to carve this in stone. But in practice, common sense
>> suffices for many people.
Andreas> No. Must. Not. Flame. Him.
You should feel lucky. Had this been written in stone early on
the GNU toolkit would have been the one codified in policy, and you
would have been out of luck.
Secondly, policy is not a catch all compendium of all possible
knowledge; policy should generally be minimalistic, and allow for
innovation by not tying everything down (indeed, qw are best served
when policy dictates a choice between two viable technical
alternatives _only_ when an either-or choice has to be made).
manoj
--
It's always darkest just before it gets pitch black.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: