Bug#54524: http_proxy and web clients.
> > Nicolás Lichtmaier <nick@debian.org> writes:
> >
> > > You have a cost in being non-standard, and I don't think it is worth it
> > > this time. What benefits would give us what you propose?
> >
> > The cost is greater than /etc/mailname or /etc/papersize ?
> >
> > Debian long ago decided not to worry about the issue of being different and
> > just build the best distribution it can be. Of course being compatible is
> > important, but if we just want to do everything the same as Red Hat then why
> > bother?
>
> On a slightly different tack, I'm not sure we want to dictate in
> policy default behaviour for every single package - that is clearly
> absurd; so in many cases we have to allow package maintainers to do
> their job (make the package work optimally on Debian systems), without
> hand-holding from policy. In this case, submitting bugs against any
> web-using packages that ignore http_proxy should provide a
> solution.
A definition of policy: `Every issue that affect an "open" class of
packages, is a policy issue.' With an open class of packages I'm refering to
a generic type of packages (I'm adding the distinction because a "closed
class" don't need to be policy, and with a closed class I mean a set of
packages that go together and there's no way you can package something that
need to interact with them, and so the involved parties can come to an
agreement without the need to bother other people). If a decision is made
about how all sgml programs should behave, that should be in the policy. So
we have policies about editors, about web servers, etc.
So, this is clearly a policy issue. =)
Reply to: