And Yay! Woo! I get to do this stupid rant, yet again.
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 11:28:51PM -0500, John R. Daily wrote:
> "We will be guided by the needs of our users and the
> free-software community. We will place their interests first in
> our priorities. We will support the needs of our users for
> operation in many different kinds of computing environment."
Yes, and we've all already agreed to that.
So there's no need to try to use policy as some sort of stick to do it.
If people aren't using debconf, it's either because they don't know how
to use it effectively -- in which case the most productive solution is
to help them -- or because debconf just plain doesn't work for their
package -- in which case debconf needs to be improved.
> If placing our users' interests first is one of the 5 commitments
> we agree to when we become Debian Developers, then what excuse is
> there for not mandating debconf?
You don't need an excuse to not mandate something, you need a damn good
reason to mandate, and a huge amount of current practice to support it.
I realise most everyone here is more interested in pulling out the whips
and joining the overlord committee to lord it over everyone else in the
project, but that is just completely the wrong thing to be doing.
Cheers,
aj, who'll be proposing the MUST/SHOULD nonsense be removed from the hands
of policy when he gets some free time again
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
"Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it.
C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who
can't deal with deconstructionist humor. Code Blue."
-- Mike Hoye,
see http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt
Attachment:
pgpwfPFbmq0RO.pgp
Description: PGP signature