Re: Policy progress, was Re: Bug#208010: [PROPOSAL] init script LSB 1.3 compliance (revised)
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 11:10:17AM +0200, Stefan Gybas wrote:
> Yes, these examples are long in the past, but I also think that the FHS
> transition over 4 years ago has been the last major Policy change that
> affected more than just a few packages.
Sorry, I lost you there. Is that to make us believe FHS transition was
proper or improper, necessary or unnecessary, or what? :)
> I think that if I file wishlist bugs againt some packages that provide
> init script I'll get "change Policy first" as an answer.
Probably only if you file bugs without any rationale. If not, those
maintainers need some attitude readjustment.
> - wait a very long time (at least one release?)
This part you can eliminate by motivating others to help. This is usually
done by providing explanations and patches.
Making things "should" or "must" in the Policy does not magically eliminate
> > Wrong. There is only one policy, the current one.
> Then it is a bug to upload a package which does not conform to the
> latest Policy version with it's control file stating a former
> Standards-Version:? (No, I don't intend to mass-file bug reports. ;-))
It's wrong to make a package and make it conform to an outdated policy.
That and only that.
2. That which causes joy or happiness.