Bug#184507: 2.3.9.1 grammar
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Chris Waters wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 10:43:42AM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Chris Waters wrote:
> Keep in mind that policy is intended to help us make a better system,
> not to allow the filing of whimsical bug reports.
>
Not an intention of mine. I genuinely did not understand since I did not
know about the old IO rule.
...
> > I think this is a desirable meaning, but I'm unsure as to how many
> > serious bugs this may cause.
>
> Most likely none. Before debconf appeared, the rule was standard IO
> only. So anything else would have long since been fixed.
>
> > It would be interesting to find out how many packages use direct IO
> > and methods other than debconf if there are any that still don't use
> > debconf.
>
> Yes it would. I would definitely like to drop the standard IO rule,
> and mandate debconf-equivalents. But we have a ways to go still
> before that becomes practical.
>
What's the hold up? A long list of packages? Should I look at talking to
debian-devel about mass wishlist bugs against packages that use standard
IO? Of course I'd have to check what had already been done for progress
towards making debconf replace standard IO first, but I don't recall
stumbling across anything in my general Debian related browsing.
> > Also if I did find the correct document, then it'd be nice to change the
> > word "Specification" to "Protocol" and/or put in a link to the document.
>
> Um, there is a link further down in the same paragraph.
>
I have no more comments on this bug then.
Thanks
Drew Daniels
Reply to: