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

Bug#102213: PROPOSAL] Policy interpretation and exceptions


On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 03:12:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Uh, no, it should definitely not be a "must". There is no way I'm going
> to throw a package out of the distro because it fails to mention that
> policy is stupid in some way or another.

    Ok, fair enough (although surely that's a quick bug filing and upload to
get it fixed [that is, mention it in README.Debian], isn't it?).  Could it
be a "should"?

> Policy is decided upon and implemented by rough consensus of the
> maintainers it applies to. If you can't get that consensus for a policy
> proposal, you're doing something wrong. Maintainers aren't idiots. It's

    I'm not particularly concerned about this policy proposal.  As you seem
to say, it will proceed on its own merits.  I was wondering about the impact
this would have on the distribution at large (that is, maintainers who do
not participate [overtly] in this policy proposal and if they will feel any
obligation to follow a "should generally" directive).  However, this is not
a sticking point for me for the moment.

> worthwhile trusting them to be intelligent, and allowing them to be
> without additional bureacracy.

    Perhaps I have misunderstood the purpose of Policy, but I would have
thought it was Policy's place to specify "should"s and "must"s in this case.

> I'm unsure whether a thermonuclear strike would be enough to lay the
> /usr/sbin/traceroute matter to rest. In any event, this proposal is more
> to do with issues like #93975 and #100346, or #100472. Or things like
> the abiword font-dependency issue (it needs a stronger dependency than
> it ought).

    Fair enough.  (I note that I have indicated in previous mail what I see
as the possible ways to lay the /usr/sbin/traceroute matter to rest,
including the addition of a symlink or wrapper, which has still not seen any
serious argument against it.)

> (Worrying about whether /sbin should or shouldn't exist, or what
> specifically should or shouldn't be in it is off topic for this
> thread and bug report. Discuss it elsewhere if you have to. Sending a
> mail to -policy as well as policy bug is redundant, btw)

    My apologies, I was not clear about that and thought this was the safest
course.  I did mention that I assumed that this proposal was intended to
deal somewhat with issues regarding sbin so my comments would have been

    The rest of my reply (to the off-topic subject of sbin and the FHS) is
split to a separate mail to debian-policy[1].


[1] Message-ID: <[🔎] 20010627000227.A8500@bauhaus.dhs.org>

+---           (Rene Weber is <rene_autoreply@elvenlord.com>)          ---+
| "People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of  thought |
| which they avoid"                                        -- Kierkegaard |
+---  E-Mail Policy & web page: <http://satori.home.dhs.org/~rweber/>  ---+

Attachment: pgpfKn0C0Kc3w.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: