On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 01:46:59AM -0800, Seth Arnold wrote:
> * Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> [010325 01:11]:
> > BTW, I'm inclined to think it'd be a good idea for people who want to add
> > a "must" requirement (or to change a should to a must) to include a list of
> > packages that would need to be removed from the distribution due to the
> > change. Anyone agree/disagree?
> While I appreciate your desire to increase understanding of consequences
> of policy changes, asking every policy change author to examine the
> details of `apt-cache pkgnames | wc -l` packages (on my machine, 8458
> packages!) is ..
...completely unrelated to what I'd like.
If you create a "must" directive, then you've just created a reason to
have a number of extra RC bugs. Indeed, that's the only point of making
it a "must" instead of a "should".
If you're not going to bother filing the RC bugs, there's no reason
not to leave it as a "should". If you are going to file the RC bugs,
then someone's got to figure out which packages it applies to at some
point anyway.
There's 6720 packages in sid/i386 at the moment, btw, not 8458.
> Why don't you like the current system?
Because people don't seem to understand the point of the must/should
dichotomy.
> I don't see anything drastically wrong with the current process. Why do
> you disagree with it?
Encouraging people to list the packages which'll have RC bugs filed
against them due to a proposal they're making doesn't seem particularly
drastic.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
-- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
Attachment:
pgptFOampFhY4.pgp
Description: PGP signature