Re: Bug#50832: AMENDMENT] Clarify meaning of Essential: yes
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> Wichert, Chris, did this or my previous mail answer your objections,
> or...?
Well, you did a good job of explaining, and I have a better idea of
what you're *trying* to do now, but I'm still not sure this is the
right way.
You yourself admitted that this is more of an explanatory thing than
actual policy (after all, the bug in bash is a bug with or without
this addition). Therefore, I would like to counterpropose that this
new paragraph (or something like it) be added to the packaging manual,
rather than to policy.
But if (for whatever reason) my suggestion is rejected, then yes, I'll
consider my objection answered.
cheers
--
Chris Waters xtifr@dsp.net | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or xtifr@debian.org | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
Reply to: