Re: Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 08:00:27PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Chris" == Chris Waters <xtifr@debian.org> writes:
> Chris> since the discussion period IS NOW UP, the text posted by
> Chris> Manoj to -devel (which incorporates the minor changes) IS
> Chris> INDEED THE FINAL FORM!
> Well, no, since Colin agreed that editorial changes to the
> SGML were indeed permissible.
I'm sorry, but since you made a point of saying "this is not the final
form", I assumed you meant that *substantive* changes were still
needed. Not fine-tuning to the markup. I have always assumed that
policy editors are free to fine-tune the markup when necessary.
> Chris> The decision to forward this to -devel (and to make misleading
> Chris> claims about its status)
> misleading?
See above. Perhaps I merely misinterpreted your statement.
> Chris> he weren't professing his own love for the proposal, I would
> Chris> suspect an underhanded attempt to undermine the proposal for
> Chris> reasons unstated.
> Chris> If I were really paranoid, I'd speculate about why the policy
> Chris> editors ignored the earlier versions of this proposal, which,
> Chris> after much debate, *was accepted*! But I won't go there.
> You already have.
No. I won't deny that these thoughts crossed my mind (as that would
be an obvious lie), but I didn't believe them for a second. I'm sorry
if I seem a little angry, but this has been dragging on for three
years, and I'm tired and frustrated with the topic.
> Chris> But I am perturbed by Manoj's attempt to drag the debate out
> Chris> further when this proposal has been debated to death since
> Chris> June of 1999! And all objections have been answered or
> Chris> addressed. And it has a full complement (more than) of proper
> Chris> seconds already, and no remaining objections.
> Well, I think because getting input from the general developer
> body is never a bad idea. I think that major changes in packaging
> ought to receive wider circulation than just the policy list.
I have no problem with that. What major change in packaging did you
have in mind? This proposal clearly is not any such thing!
* Packages without a man page are buggy. They will continue to be buggy.
* Use of undocumented(7) is a bug (it requires an open bug report on file).
Use of undocumented(7) will continue to be a bug.
This will not prevent anyone from using undocumented(7). If they were
willing to live with a buggy package before, they will probably be
willing to live with a buggy package afterwards. The only real change
is that it's going to be harder for people to *pretend* their packages
are bug-free when they lack man pages.
> Also, because I am more interested in doing the right thing,
> and looking at the spirit of the consensus building process, rather
> than being a rules lawyer. You do agree that resolving any flaws we
> may have overlooked is more important than not missing a deadline,
> don't you?
No, fine, wonderful, nobody has found any flaws in this *trivial*
proposal in the *three years* since it was originally proposed, but
maybe an extra few days in front of a wider audience will reveal the
subtle way in which it can destroy the whole project.
> And stop being paranoid.
I'm not paranoid, I'm tired and frustrated. I was involved in the
discussions that lead to the original proposal, I answered people's
questions about the proposal during the original discussion period, I
went off and browbeat the lintian maintainer into adding a warning
about the use of undocumented(7) in order to address someone's
reservations. The proposal was already accepted once, and then
dropped on the floor (presumably accidentally). Colin noticed,
revived it, brought it up-to-date. And I just don't see why this
already-accepted-once proposal is being such a big deal.
--
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: