Re: Old proposals again (Re: [PROPOSAL] Re: Shared libs vs. plugins.)
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 12:52:10AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > > Wichert, I think "Geez, again?" is the incorrect response to Daniel's
> > > mail. Bugs #42399 and #65345 against debian-policy have been outstanding
> > > for 1 year and 268 days and 322 days. #65345 even has a patch against
> > > lintian, though it is likely far too old to automatically apply.
> >
> > Our inability to get this into Policy is appaling, isn't it? :<
>
> Manoj and I are only two people. Handling policy bugs is hard for a
> number of reasons:
>
> (1) There are a lot of them, and many of them are now quite long.
>
> (2) We don't have any official editorial rights, so unless a proposal
> has been seconded in the standard way, it's difficult to figure
> out what to do with it.
>
> I asked a week or so ago for help in handling this sort of stuff, but
> only one offer has been forthcoming.
Well, I've done my part in submitting a patch as part of #66023 (Message-ID:
<20000710114356.B30759@cibalia.gkvk.hr>).
If you ignore the silly chatter in the bug log after that proposal, there's
Shaleh saying that there would be "several" exceptions. He named two, and I
explained what to do with those two, but he didn't like the explanation
much. In the meantime, the QT library package changed, so it's not an
exception anymore.
Nobody explicitely said they second it, and nobody explicitely said they
object.
Several people (mostly maintainers of packages against which lintian barfs
due to this) have said they would like this change in Policy, but not
"officially", even though I've asked. If those people don't care to second a
proposal, I can't help...
Maybe people would notice this if we put some porn in that bug log. :>
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Reply to: