Re: Software Licenced Under a Specific Version of GPL
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> writes:
Santiago> On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Steve Greenland wrote:
>> No, we change practice first, then policy.
Santiago> Are you sure? Hmm, perhaps we should have waited for all packages
Santiago> moving to /usr/share/doc before making it policy ;-)
And that is why we now change the practice first, and then
make policy. Are you suggesting we should never learn from our
mistakes, for the sake of tradition?
The current philosophy is to make policy changes backwards
compatible, and gradual, and policy changes should never make a
significant fraction of the packages instantaneously non-compliant.
Santiago> By "Get policy changed first" I mean "Make a proposal, get two
Santiago> seconds, no objections, and wait one week before it's
Santiago> accepted".
It shall not be accepted, since there will be objections. Get
the file in place first. We can't change policy, and make all
packages non-compliant, and there be o recourse to removing the bug.
Indeed, once the symlink is in place, policy may recommend
referring to the real file; (only recommend, mind you); and let the
change happen as its own glacial pace,
>> The file has to be there before policy can tell other packages to use it.
Santiago> I disagree. After the proposal is approved I can put the
Santiago> file there before the debian-policy.deb is updated.
Then there is a catch-22. Policy documents current
practice.
manoj
--
Better than a thousand pointless words is one saying to the point on
hearing which one finds peace. 100
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <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
Reply to: