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

Re: Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:14:50AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

> 	There is a proposal under consideration for changing the
>  undocumented(7) man page. The current proposal is included below; it
>  is not yet the final form; and input of the general community is
>  solicited.

Excuse me?  This is an old proposal which has been much debated and
much revised.  It was also generally well-received, and I'm not quite
sure how it slipped between the cracks for so long.  Colin's new
revision was proposed on Oct 30, and he suggested two weeks debate
(which seems more than fair since this was already an old proposal).
Some minor changes (i.e. s/must/should/) were proposed by me and Mark
Brown, and since the discussion period IS NOW UP, the text posted by
Manoj to -devel (which incorporates the minor changes) IS INDEED THE

The decision to forward this to -devel (and to make misleading claims
about its status) seems to have been a unilateral decision on Manoj's
part.  If he weren't professing his own love for the proposal, I would
suspect an underhanded attempt to undermine the proposal for reasons
unstated.  If I were really paranoid, I'd speculate about why the
policy editors ignored the earlier versions of this proposal, which,
after much debate, *was accepted*!  But I won't go there.

But I am perturbed by Manoj's attempt to drag the debate out further
when this proposal has been debated to death since June of 1999!  And
all objections have been answered or addressed.  And it has a full
complement (more than) of proper seconds already, and no remaining

I am also perturbed that Manoj, who WROTE our current policy update
policy seems to be completely and deliberately ignoring that policy
with his post to -devel.  Manoj, what gives?  (If you actually object
to the proposal, please, object!)

Anyway, while I have no objections to input from -devel readers, I
have to say that anyone who's concerned about how changes in policy
may affect them should already be subscribed to -policy.

Now, if this were my proposal, I might allow a further three days
discussion, out of respect for Manoj.  I think three days is more than
adequate for a three-year-old proposal.  But at this point, it's
Colin's proposal, and unless *he* decides to extend the debate, I
think this proposal lives or dies TODAY!  (And with many seconds and
no objections, that means it lives.)

And just to quell any last-minute fears people may have, who missed
the earlier, extensive debates: this proposal does NOT forbid the use
of undocumented(7).  The use of undocumented(7) HAS ALWAYS BEEN A BUG!
This is why current policy REQUIRES you to have an open bug report
before using undocumented(7).  This proposal simply removes the
APPARENT blessing of policy from what is, and always has been, a buggy
state.  Existing packages will be no more buggy than they already have
been.  At most, this may help to remind people to file some bug
reports that should have been on file long ago!

Chris Waters           |  Pneumonoultra-        osis is too long
xtifr@debian.org       |  microscopicsilico-    to fit into a single
or xtifr@speakeasy.net |  volcaniconi-          standalone haiku

Reply to: