Re: ':any' syntax in package names in jessie/sid Packages
> As xnox says there is still some pending changes around the interpreter
> problem, as described here:
> https://wiki.debian.org/HelmutGrohne/MultiarchSpecChanges
>
> And that debate is part of the reason this stuff hasn't been
> considered 'finalised' and thus ready for policy. But I think the core
> stuff is now well-enough used that at the very least policy should not
> be inconsistent with it.
pending changes, things still to be finalised, undocumented syntax changes
being pushed into jessie that broke wheezy→jessie upgrades (which had to be
fixed in both dh_python{2,3} and also required a stable update to apt
[1])... this worries me. It feels like it is being done backwards.
This is the exact situation where I would like to see policy lead the way
and be part of the process to design and codify things *before* we start
implementing them on 21k packages. This is a general comment, not just about
multi-arch -- our policy editors have a huge amount of experience in
developing technical policies and documentation to go with them. Making use
of their expertise at the design stage would be much better for the project.
Currently, the project seems to tend towards policy documenting current
practice rather than policy leading us towards better (best!) practice; this
culture means that improving things can be very hard because you may have to
become policy non-compliant in order to develop the new "standard practice"
to then seek a change in policy. (And as observed recently, this also means
that when given a choice between A and B, we end up choosing A, B, C and Z
[2].)
cheers
Stuart
[1] #723586
[2] http://lists.debian.org/87y4zc3jix.fsf%40windlord.stanford.edu
--
Stuart Prescott http://www.nanonanonano.net/ stuart@nanonanonano.net
Debian Developer http://www.debian.org/ stuart@debian.org
GPG fingerprint 90E2 D2C1 AD14 6A1B 7EBB 891D BBC1 7EBB 1396 F2F7
Reply to: