Hello, 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 on-topic. 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]. Rene References: [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