Bug#508644: mass bugfiling (against 8 packages) and/or new package default-mta
On Sun, Mar 01 2009, Carsten Hey wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 04:55:23PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> We could have a exim4 upload implementing in sid this rather quickly
>> after receiving a go.
> In general I much prefer a virtual package over a real one but I think
> we should wait a bit until the following issues are clarified:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 09:46:15AM +0100, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
>>  policy 7.5 has only a note:
>> | If you want to specify which of a set of real packages should be the
>> | default to satisfy a particular dependency on a virtual package, you
>> | should list the real package as an alternative before the virtual
>> | one.
> In my opinion it is a way better practise to first update the policy and
> then adapt n packages instead of first change them in a way which is
> possibly against the policy and expect the policy to be updated
Actually, this is contrary to the accepted practice that policy
is not the place to do design; and that you should have a working,
tested solution (by convincing and getting a the maintainers of
affected packages to implement the solution); _then_ you write that in
While there might not be much to design here in this particular
case, you can't call on "better" practice, since policy has never
worked that way.
> RFC 2119 says:
> | 3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
> | may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore
> | a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
> | carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
> The policy uses "should" in this case, do we understand the full
> implications of the proposed step carefully weighed before choosing
> a different course? We are probably on a good way to do this but until
> now at least I do not fully understand how apt and aptitude would handle
> all proposed solutions and what all possible negative side effects are.
Policy's use of should has little to do with the RFC 2119;
indeed, it would need an almost full rewrite to make sure policy
starts using RFC 2119 version of SHOULD/MUST.
starting to look at policy again
"Take that, you hostile sons-of-bitches!" James Coburn, in the finale of
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C