On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 12:18:41AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [you continue to CC me personally; is this some sort of sport for you?]
No, it's mutt's default behaviour. The previous message wasn't cc'ed to
you, anyway.
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 02:24:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 10:57:26PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > In fact, perhaps we ought to re-examine why we even have Debian Policy when
> > > you can just file bugs and ask people to change things, and then NMU their
> > > packages if they don't do it. Hmmmm...
> > You say this, and then accuse me of setting up straw men? Geez.
> It isn't very pleasant, is it? I'll stop if you will.
I'll believe it when I see it.
> > > > Raising this to a "must" doesn't seem to buy anything at all, at the
> > > > risk of declaring packages unsuitable for release for no benefit to
> > > > anyone at all.
> > > It's clearly of benefit for fonts.dir files to be available for fonts that
> > > are unpacked to the system. Otherwise you can install the fonts, but the X
> > > server (or font server) don't even see them.
> > So this just seems a complete non-sequitur to me.
> I guess this shouldn't surprise me. I'm saying font packages MUST invoke
> update-fonts-dir in their postinst scripts so that fonts.dir will be
> available and refer to the font files that have just been unpacked to the
> system. Otherwise you can install the fonts, but the X server (or font
> server) don't even see them.
Sure, fine, that all makes sense.
What has that got to do with changing the should in:
] 1. Fonts of any type supported by the X Window System should be be
] in a separate binary package from any executables, libraries, or
] documentation (except that specific to the fonts shipped);
to a must? That's the only specific example I've been talking about in this
entire thread; it's quite possible every other one of your proposed musts
is reasonable. That's fine. It seems, both generally and for this specific
example, that most of the should->must changes were gratuitious. It may be
that my generalisation was completely out of whack, but it'd be helpful to
at least talk about this specific case first.
Which you don't seem to be doing?
> Also, you may have missed your chance to yank some/all Debian font packages
> from the distribution. Anton Zinoviev filed several critical bugs against
> them recently for invoking mkfontdir without the -e option, which causes
> encodings.dir files to get clobbered. Hence the new tool,
> update-fonts-dir, and the mandate on its usage.
*sigh* First, this still seems to be completely unrelated to the case I'm
trying to talk about.
Second, I don't get any sort of kick out of filing release critical bugs
on packages, or pulling them because of RC bugs. That's why I'm having
long drawn out discussions on this list every other week.
> If, on the other hand, you intend to give package maintainers a reasonable
> amout of time to fix bugs brought to their attention, then I do not see
> what is problematic about my proposal. Packages migrate. Those that don't
> get bugs filed about them. After that I expect the transition to complete.
> I've already pledged to personally get involved in making sure the font
> packages that currently exist get migrated, if my help is needed.
Sure, and none of that requires anything more than the "should" that is
already there in the case of splitting fonts into separate packages.
> > Why should splitting font packages be a stronger requirement than splitting
> > library packages?
> Why shouldn't it? Shouldn't policy proposals be weighed on their own
> merits, and not by strength comparisons with unrelated policies?
It's not at the moment. You're the one that wants to change it. The
analogy seems more than fair to me, since more breakage occurs with
unsplit libraries than with unsplit fonts.
> Because it's a neverending game of whack-a-mole with you. I address one
> set of objections, you just spin up a new set. Are you engaged in some
> sort of psychological research designed to gauge my patience?
If I were, I'd have finished long ago. You've got about a two
message limit, if things don't go your way immeidately you go off the
handle. *shrug*
> I would invite you to write your own X font policy revision proposal, but I
> fear it would just take the form of an amendment to my existing one which
> simply replaces all "+"'s with "-"'s and vice versa.
And if it's anything to do with me, you make some spurious and ignorant
claim like this.
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:
pgpPRZPUSSvh6.pgp
Description: PGP signature