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

Bug#87510: I second this proposal

On Sat, May 19, 2001 at 10:49:28PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 11:08:01PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > >                      The other is that it's completely wrongheaded
> > > to convert a policy from being entirely optional (you /may/ declare
> > > build-depends) straight to being compulsory.
> > Section 2.4.2 says /should/:
> Yes, policy is currently riddled with such inconsistencies.  It's a
> significant bug that needs sorting out over the next 3-6 months.  I
> have a gameplan, but am not yet ready to work on it.

For reference, anything that ought to be fixed in policy for woody needs to
be done in the next one month.


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: pgpXcVX91vjAJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: