Re: Bug#196367: debian-policy: clarify what to do about priority mismatches

[Josip Rodin <joy@srce.hr>]

On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 04:51:29PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > No, I mean that a complete consistency in the set of 10K packages is
> > practically impossible to achieve, let alone sustain. And then
> > there's always situations where it seems wrong to demote all
> > non-default alternatives to extra just because there has to be a
> > default.
> 
> 	Are you arguing that we should then give up having policy at
>  all, since it is all futile? 

No, I'm not. Read the next sentence. (This is not meant as a flame, although
your sentence certainly seems like it was.)

> > We can and should strive towards the goal, but insisting on that
> > this must be done is not a particularly productive use of anyone's
> > time and makes the Policy Manual more an idealist rather than a
> > prudent document, and that is not in its scope.
> 
> 	Ah. But policy never insists on anything. Policy just is. It
>  defines the rules that allow invariants to be maintained by packages
>  in Debian that allow for closer integration or improve end user usage
>  patterns. Policy does not have an enforcement arm. 

None of that means that Policy should have 'must' rules that are so idealist
that they are pointless (barring the current case where Santiago says he
worked it all out -- I've taken his word for it and didn't reply further).

"All software in our distribution must not have too many bugs." -- that
would certainly "allow for closer integration or improve end user usage
patterns", but we're not writing that. Not because we can't enforce it,
but because it would be pointless.

-- 
     2. That which causes joy or happiness.