Re: Processed: reassigning back...
>>"Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <wichert@wiggy.net> writes:
Wichert> Policy still documents a relation that is not ready for use yet and
Wichert> has never been announced as such by the people implementing it (ie
Wichert> the dpkg developers).
Oh, my. What a dpkg centric view. Policy is more than merely
documentation of dpkg, no matter how you view it. The counter view is
policy documents a field by which packages may tell users how
packages enhance other packages. At this point, this information is
merely transmitted to people who look at the description (apt-cache
show, for one), until the tools catch up.
Wichert> If you decide that you want people to use a half implemented
Wichert> feature that might change behaviour again, feel free to
The feature as such is useful as it stands. Do you think the
packaging tool implementors can't follow a really simplistic spec?
Especially one that was discussed with their input, and the spec
written up post design discussions? And one that follows other
relationship specifications already implemented? In that case, we'll
deal with it when it happens.
Wichert> close this bugreport and forget about it. I'll happily
Wichert> reassign bugreports about people running into problems with
Wichert> Enhances back to debian-policy later in that case.
It would be sent back to dpkg-dev, since I think that
developers throwing hissy fits and turning away feature requests from
users ought to grow up. The enhances relationship is indeed a
desirable one; feature requests ought not to be turned away just
because you think you deserve the final say.
Utility to users ought to be the deciding criteria, not a
pissing contest over who gets to decide when things are accepted. And
giving more information about package relationships can only be
helpful.
Wichert> If you decide to remove references to Enhances from debian-policy,
Wichert> great. It means people won't be tempted to use something that isn't
Wichert> quite ready for general use yet.
Why is it not ready for general use yet? You think people can't
think for themselves? That when they see an enhances field they are
too durned dumb to make the corelation, without the genius of dpkg
developers to hold their hands? Policy does not say that tools shall
behave any differently in presence of the field.
Wichert> But at least make a decision and stick with it instead of this
Wichert> silly reassigning/opening/closing.
Yann did not see the cloning. I closed it already. Deal with
it.
manoj
--
Dammit Jim, I'm an actor, not a doctor.
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: