Re: Old proposals again (Re: [PROPOSAL] Re: Shared libs vs. plugins.)
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 01:03:09PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > 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:
> 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
> 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...
Oh, I'm fully in favour of that particular proposal (when we figure
out what it should actually say): it's one of those cases where policy
is "obviously" wrong; #72335 is another (which has a clear patch;
somebody please second it!).
It's just that there are a lot of bugs and it's hard for just one or
two people to maintain them without the submitters lending a little
bit of a helping hand by marking the proposals as amendments when the
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg
Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/