Bug#97755: PROPOSAL] eliminating task packages; new task system
>>"Joey" == Joey Hess <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> Mind you, I like the proposal, and were it not for the issue
>> of timing, I would probably have seconded this.
Joey> It's all about timing, unfortunatly -- we have to get this done before
Joey> woody base is frozen, and that includes getting the old task packages
Joey> removed. I think we will though, and will probably have it almostly
Joey> completly implemented by the time the discussion period is up and it
Joey> goes into policy.
But what's the driving necessity to get this into policy in a
hurry? We can't use policy to bludgeon people into removing their
packages; that has to come from agreements reached with authors of
the packages themselves, from the DPL, or a general resolution.
We can then put this all into policy sometime in sarge, after
the dust has settled down, and the battle plan has actually made
contact with deployment and bug and the myriad strange systems out
I have yet to see a reason for rushing into policy something
that is a proposed process, and not yet a documentation of tried,
stable, and current practice, Obviously, I am missing something.
You can bear anything if it isn't your own fault. Katharine Fullerton
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C