Re: mass bug gnustep programs: policy violation
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 09:01:43AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Matthew Palmer (email@example.com) [040624 05:55]:
> > On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 09:15:43PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * Chris Cheney (firstname.lastname@example.org) [040623 20:55]:
> > > > They could just be removed from sarge and be released again with
> > > > sarge+1... Not every package with a RC bug has to be fixed and released
> > > > with sarge, it is common practice to pull them if they don't get fixed
> > > > in time.
> > > You're not really suggesting to not release gnustep in sarge?
> > That's what we do with packages that aren't of release quality.
> Do you really and honestly believe that this bug means that gnustep is
> not of release quality.
It's not as though the requirement of FHS compliance is new or anything. If
the GNUstep maintainers can not or will not comply with the policy, either
(a) the policy needs to be reviewed as to whether it's impractical, or (b)
the non-compliant packages need to be removed.
So far, all I've seen is people saying that GNUstep doesn't need to follow
Policy, which I cannot agree with.
If a coherent argument can be made for why Policy should be changed to allow
GNUstep's current behaviour, it should be made. Policy isn't infallible,
and it might be that GNUstep benefits sufficiently from it's differing
structure that it should be allowed. However, the current structure works
well as far as I can see, and gratuitous differences should be avoided -- we
are trying to create consistency here, not cater for every project's
individual little foibles.
> In my opinion, these bugs are non-blockers for sarge, and one of the
> issues that should be fixed for sarge+1.
Ultimately, of course, the only opinion that matters for this is the RM and
his cohort of happy hackers. That's neither of us. You say it's non-RC RC,
I say it's RC RC. We'll probably have to agree to differ.
"I don't agree to that"