Re: packages affected list for must changes to policy (was: Re: Bug#91257: [PROPOSED] changes to X font policy)
On 25-Mar-01, 04:26 (CST), Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> 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".
The point of making a "must" requirement is that the consequences of not
following that requirment are sufficiently serious to justify removing
a package that does not follow that requirement. The number of packages
affected is largely irrelevant.
If I propose that "packages must not call 'rm -rf /' in their postinst
script", we could all agree that it was a completely reasonable
requirement no matter how many packages were affected.
> 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 a huge difference between "you have to find all the affected
packages" and "someone (probably many people) will have to find the
affected packages".
Are you also going to require that each person who suggests a
modification to a proposal adjust the list appropriately? And who gets
to keep up with checking the new packages every day?
> Because people don't seem to understand the point of the must/should
> dichotomy.
The must/should dichotomy is (or at least should be) based on the
real consequences of not following a recommendation. The bug system
severities are just there to make it easier to track.
> 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.
Encouraging I could agree with, particularly when the check could be
automated against the Packages file. But even an automated check against
the maintainer scripts is not feasible for most people, and a lot of
checks are not possible to automate.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <stevegr@debian.org>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
Reply to: