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

Re: setuid/setgid binaries contained in the Debian repository.

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 11:59:03 -0400, Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> said: 

> In certian cultures, including mine, gratutious repitions of ones
> point is considered childish and rude and something most of us
> outgrow by age 6.

	I would much rather you restricted your responses to the
 substance of the discussion, rather than attacking the style and
 culture of the respondent; this project is supposed to have a
 multicultural membership: all the world is not american, and I think
 people may need to learn to live with that. 

> Anyway, you seem to be arguing that policy cannot make mandates that
> require significant changes to the source or behavior of programs,
> which is not true at all.

	Not without a transition plan in the general case. And my
 point, which you have not addressed, was that most of your examples
 were not ones that mandated significant changes to the source or
 behavior of programs.

> Policy requires that packages bt FHS compliant; this often means
> large changes to the endire organisation of packages, including
> large source code changes and design changes. (See the space-orbit
> package for a good example.)

	Surely you recall the time that was afforded developers to
 accomplish the /usr/doc -> /usr/share/doc change? We did not mandate
 FHS compliance with a simple change to policy mandates. 

> Policy asks that window managers support the debian menu system,
> this has required significant changes in the code of less-capable
> window managers such as twm. Policy requires that everything in
> debian use the same backspace/delete keyboard mapping, which
> requires changes all over the place. Policy requires that programs
> not depend on environment variables to function, which can easily
> mean that a program's source code must be changed to make it read a
> config file instead. These are just a few examples.

	First, most of these alloowed people time to bring their
 programs in line. Secondly,, no new programs were kept out of the
 distribution by requiring an audit and a consensus on debian-devel;
 You got the program in, and you worked on the bugs that were filed on

	Using a policy directive as a gating mechanism has never, ever
 been done.

Diplomacy is to do and say, the nastiest thing in the nicest
way. Balfour
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: