Re: policy summary for past two weeks
> > > I'm almost at the point that I'm ready to agree with the small and growing
> > > group of people who are saying screw the transition---the only thing it
> > > really hurts is /usr/doc/pac<tab> and being a creature of habit that
> > > annoys me. But I'd deal with it.
> >
> > I think this is the whole problem with this issue. You are not creating a
> > distribution for you. Debian has many more users than me and you. We should
> > try to make them comfortable and we all know that nearly every user will
> > hate the transition as it's being carried out now.
>
> Then someone needs to come up with a solution, NOW. Not in a month, not
> in three months, not after we release potato. I don't like having two doc
> directories to look in either, but we seem to be running out of other
> options.
Uh? That's not true. The symlink answer works.
And this was handled pretty bad:
1) The update to the policy was obviously bad. It needed more discussion.
Bad for the policy editors.
2) People used the `formal objection' mechanism to stop the answer just
because the didn't like. I don't think this was right. And the people who
did it are starting to realize that too.. =)
3) If this `formal obection' mechanism worked this way here, then it's badly
designed. People can use it for normal votes... so if 40 people likes a
proposal and 5 don't the proposal get dumped.
4) I didn't like the reasons given at all. Optimization is the mother of
disaster.. (why don't we design a package format using 4 bits for the
package section, 1 bit for... =) ). Having a prerm script for a long time is
a bad thing? a price too high? come on! Having to add 2 or 3 lines to a
debian/rules is too much work for a maintainer? come on! I think the ordered
list of priorities to take into account should be made a policy document...
=) (humm.. perhaps that's not a bad idea after all...)
Bye!
Reply to: