Re: /usr/doc transition and other things
On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 04:52:59PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> I think that does not make sense at all.
>
> Current practice is a good guidance for the policy process, but being
> strictly bound to it renders the policy group useless because we had
> no chance to make real, innovative progress.
>
> Let's consider changing the source format. We could either change the
> policy manual first, and then let packages folow it, or wait until
> many packages are converted and then adopt policy. I don't see why
> the second shall be better than the first. Indeed, I see an advantage
> in the first because we can specify the details in the policy before
> packages actually implement it, and hence probably avoid confusion or
> surprises.
>
> I also can't see why a package warrants a bug when it does not follow
> the latest policy. Every package has a standard-version attached to
> it, which it claims to follow. Only if packages bump the version
> number before following the policy of this version, it shall be a bug.
>
> So, changing the policy manual does not make 3000 packages buggy,
> because those packages have a different version number. And we don't
> have a policy about when a package is buggy because it follows an old
> standard version (although we have a lintian check for this).
>
> I think the rule "make all packages buggy" is very ill guided.
> Instead, I would like people to see that packages update to new
> version numbers regularly.
Yes.
Then again, if you want to change the source format, and policy is
ratified which results in source format being unusable during some
transition period, that's wrong.
Technical policy is supposed to be ratified by the technical committee.
[The committee hadn't been doing its job, but that doesn't free any of
us from the responsibility for failures in technical policy.]
--
Raul
Reply to: