Re: [RFC] Changing APT to pre-depend on ${shlibs:Depends}

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Julian Andres Klode writes ("Re: [RFC] Changing APT to pre-depend on ${shlibs:Depends}"):
> So we'd need one supporter now to speak up in order to get a neutral
> level again.

The purpose of the policy rule asking for consensus here is to not to
count people on one side or the other.  We don't have developers vote
on technical questions (much less count people on each side in an
informal mailing list discussion).

The purpose is to make sure that we have considered all the up- and
down-sides of the proposal, and specifically to make sure that if
there are things that are going to go wrong we discover them sooner
rather than later.

In the first instance the maintainers are the persons who will decide
whether the consensus favours the proposal.  So I suggest that people
who think the proposal is a bad idea concentrate on producing good
reasons which will persuade the maintainers.

I would request that the maintainers respond to technical arguments as
they are presented, including saying whether they're convinced and if
not why not.  There is no need for the apt maintainers to count heads.

If the maintainers say they will go ahead, but someone disagree
strongly, then the TC is indeed the mechanism by which the maintainers
can be overruled.

Thanks,
Ian.