Re: Policy progress, was Re: Bug#208010: [PROPOSAL] init script LSB 1.3 compliance (revised)
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 11:10:17 +0200, Stefan Gybas <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> So from now on, we'll only change Policy after all packages comply
>>> with the proposed changes?
>> Yes. This is how policy has always worked; too.
> Maybe in most cases, but I think not in all cases. Counter examples
> are the move from FSSTND to FHS in Policy 3.0.0 (June 1999) and the
> secure creation of temporary files (tempfile or mktemp suggested) in
> Policy 18.104.22.168 (January 1998). A lot of packages were not
> Policy-compliant when these changes were accepted.
> 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.
Indeed. But the policy process has evolved since then, too.
> To summarize: Do we really want the Policy process to work this way?
> With the growing number of developers and packages this will IMHO
> lead to just more stagnation since nobody wants to spend so much
> time to get a relatively small (but IMHO very useful) enhancemant.
You may not have a choice. The constitution does not give a
small bunch of developers the right to change policy at all; only the
tech ctte has the constitutional power to do so. There fore we have
been using this group to make gradual, non controversial changes to
policy -- and if we want to make sudden changes that make large
numbers of packages buggy, well, call in the tech ctte to do so.
Remember, the policy mailing list members are not DPL
delegates, and have never been delegates.
>> 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. ;-))
No. The standards version has no meaning (apart from a helpful
hint to the person uploading a new version), and it alone can cause
no bugs. If the package uploaded does not conform to policy, yes, it
is buggy, no matter what the standards version says.
People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather
than surrender any material part of their advantage. John Kenneth
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <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