Re: Is missing SysV-init support a bug?
Don Armstrong <email@example.com> writes:
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2016, Dmitrii Kashin wrote:
>> If we assume that this precedent allow a maintainer to violate policy,
>> so we don't need the Policy anymore.
> Violating policy is still a bug; it may be a bug in policy, or a bug in
> the package.
>> they still continue to rely on Policy to be sure that somebody takes
>> care of their interests.
> Policy is not a tool to beat developers with; it's a method of
> documenting convention so that we can build a distribution of packages
> which interact. Like most documentation of convention, it tends to lag
> behind when convention changes.
These conventions *must* be mentioned in policy specifically *before*
the changes according them are made. Policy is not only the place to
document conventions but it's also the way to inform end-users about
changes in their distribution.
So if end-user disagree he can take part in discussion and try to
explain his position to developer community. Or he can decide to switch
to another distribution before his current distro accepts these policy
I mean users must be warned before the changes are applied, certainly
not after. And therefore Policy is the tool to beat developers with.