[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Must and should again



On Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 01:11:31PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I believe it is consistent with that text for me as a maintainer to
> close a normal bug opened against my package because I violate a
> should guideline  explaining  why I had a good reason  for doing what I did.  While generally a bug, it might not be a bug in my case.

Sure. *Everything* in policy is just a guideline, and there can always be
special cases. That's why we have maintainers with good judgement.

> My problems with the current policy are that it's not clear it
> acknowledges the existence of the class of guidelines that have
> exceptions other than not being implemented by enough packages.

If you don't have any common sense or good judgement, please go away.

If you do: use it. It's almost always clear whether a policy violation
is a mistake, or if it's deliberate and desirable. If it's not, it's
probably worth talking about it, and either updating policy to mention
the exception, or noting it in README.Debian, or doing otherwise.

> Also,
> it's not clear to me that I have recourse as a user if a package is
> violating a should in a way that creates a significant problem for
> users of that packages. 

File an important bug if something about a package causes significant
problems for significant numbers of users. Submit a patch as well. Talk
to the maintainer and make sure your patch doesn't have any ill effects
for others.

This is free software: you don't need threats and sticks to get things
done.

You're all insane, btw.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
  do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
                      -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)

Attachment: pgpSv_NUhmKiI.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: