Bug#184507: 2.3.9.1 grammar
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 10:43:42AM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Oh, please. You're saying that the only *possible* interpretation of
> > "by hand" is "by running a program named hand?" That's silly.
> > (Especially since there is no such program.)
> An exaggeration to get attention.
Yes, well, that may have been your intent, but it's so silly that it
makes it hard to take you seriously. And it also gives the impression
that you're trying to make fun of the people who wrote the original,
which isn't very nice. (I know now that you weren't trying to make
fun of anyone, but that's the impression I had at first.)
> My only question being, what about packages that don't directly use
> standard IO, but call an intermediate program? Does this program have to
> correspond to the Debian Configuration Management Specification?
I think we can apply the "a difference that makes no difference is no
difference" rule here - if you use standard IO, does it make a
difference whether you use it directly, or through an intermediate
program that in turn uses standard IO? I think the answer is pretty
clearly no. If you can show a way that it would matter, then we can
try to clarify this, but otherwise, I think it's moot.
Keep in mind that policy is intended to help us make a better system,
not to allow the filing of whimsical bug reports.
> [...] intermediates such as ncurses, slang (I'm not sure if it could
> be an intermediate) do not seem to conform to it and would not be
> allowable.
Yes, that is exactly the intent.
> 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.
> 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.
--
Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra- osis is too long
xtifr@debian.org | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single
or xtifr@speakeasy.net | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
Reply to: