Re: what needs to be policy?
Hi,
>>"Joey" == Joey Hess <joey@kitenet.net> writes:
Joey> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> FUD. If you are changing things in a incompatible fashion and
>> breaking other packages and policy, I sure hope t put additional
>> obstacles in your path. In fact, this is a prime argument for
>> putting sub policies under the policy change mechanism.
Joey> You're ingoring the possibility that things may be changed in
Joey> an incompatible way but with a structure in place to preserve
Joey> backwards compatability. You're assumming that a package
Joey> maintainer can not make any large changes in the interface to
Joey> their package after it becomes widly used in debian, and this
Joey> is flat out untrue.
``untrue'' is provocative, implying an intent to deceive, but
I shall ignore that. And you are aplitting hairs. Either the new
mechanism is incompatible ot it is not: if there are structres fro
backwards compatibility, and no other program is broken, then that
paragraph does not apply (and niether is there need to change
policy). Are you just trying to be argumentative?
Joey> Example: If the format of menu files changes, the menu
Joey> maintainer should be free to make the new format the preferred
Joey> format. They will of course be required to make the old format
Joey> still work so they don't break tons of packages. This isn't
Joey> hypothetical, this has happened.
Yes. And the menu package is not yet policy. When it does
become policy, the interface shall be fixed; and once fixed, any
changes should be carefully considered, out in the open, and subject
to peer review.
Until they pass the process, they should not be considered
grounds for posting bug reports against all packages using the old
system.
Joey> If the menu system changed in an incompatable fashion with no
Joey> upgrade path it would break tons of packages and bug reports
Joey> could justifiably be filed against menu for doing this. So
Joey> there's no need for it to be policy.
justifiably? Not by your own rules, quoted below. Some would
debate that, since the maintainer has sole jurisdiction over their
package.
>> Either they are debian policy, or they are not. If they are
>> not, then one may dismiss bug reports based on not following
>> them.
Joey> No one may not. There are two valid reasons for a bug report:
Joey> 1. A package breaks. It does not work, it does not install,
Joey> whatever. This is _always_ a bug, it may not be dismissed
Joey> for any reason.
Well, Duh.
Joey> 2. A package is in violation of policy.
Joey> There is no need to make something policy if not following that
Joey> policy would lead to 1.
An incompatible change in menu does not mean the package does
not work. It does. Just every other package is now broken. By your
own rules, one may not report bugs against menu.
I find that unacceptable.
manoj
--
I know it's weird, but it does make it easier to write poetry in
perl. :-) --Larry Wall in <7865@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Reply to: