Bug#87510: I second this proposal
On Sun, May 20, 2001 at 12:33:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 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.
Agreed. But we seem to have survived quite well with this stuff for
the last several months, so I don't regard it as RC to fix it. If you
want to provide a patch, it would be great, but I don't have the time
to do it right now. I am aiming to get all of the accepted proposals
into policy within the next week, and then leave policy as is for
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/