Re: Bug#172436: followup on browser proposal
On Mon, 2003-06-16 at 15:06, Joey Hess wrote:
> > This proposal is probably great for unintegrated environments, but some
> > sort of exception should be made for integrated ones.
>
> The funny thing is that this proposal is just a reworking of section
> 12.4 of policy which deals with editors and pagers.
I consider myself familiar with most of policy, but I hadn't noticed the
exact wording (specifically the "should") before. My apologies.
> If we have
> integrated environments in debian that would fall afoul of that
> particular wording for browsers, they probably would for editors and
> pagers too.
Yes. We should probably fix those sections as well. I will submit a
proposal to do so shortly.
> It's amusing that nobody worried about that at all, while adding such
> integrated environments to Debian[1].
Again, I hadn't noticed the exact wording, and your original browser
proposal sort of slipped under my radar at the time.
> Maybe the maintainers of such
> environments should get policy fixed to explicitly allow for them in
> section 12.4 and elsewhere.
Yes.
> Or perhaps we should just assume that the "every program should choose a
> good default" paragraph lets common sense be used here.
Sure. And suggest that programs without any other preference invoke the
system alternative. I will do that in my proposal.
> [1] Then again, the maintainers of such environments have historically
> disregared or badly implemented other important bits of policy,
> like 10.6.
That's because that part of policy again doesn't make sense for an
integrated environment. Besides, the policy editors are always talking
about how policy should follow practice, so now we're at the stage where
the practice is realized and we need to fix policy.
Reply to: