On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 04:04:12PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 20:50:40 -0500, Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> said: > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 11:07:12AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> Policy does not need to exhaustively document _all_ current > >> practice -- or even all current recommended practices (just look at > >> developers reference) > > > Then I do not understand why, for example, you are eager to ensure > > that debian/rules must be a Makefile (to recall an earlier > > discussion). > > I would have thought it was simpe to distinguish between these > cases. In once case, policy has provided a rule which packages and > people can depend upon, and changing it would require much Pan And > Suffering. > > In the other case, there is an attempt being made to add on to > the set of rules mandated by policy, removing which, as you have > seen, results in Much Pain And Suffering. Well, no, actually I haven't seen any evidence of such Pain and Suffering. > I am merely trying to minimize the Pain And Suffering. ...which has not objectively demonstrated to exist. In any case, if adding rules to policy simply creates more opportunities for future Pain and Suffering, then I guess we have no business ever doing so. Unless there are Benefits and Resulting Efficiencies that outweigh the Pain and Suffering, in which case we're right back to needing those objective demonstrations. -- G. Branden Robinson | If you want your name spelled Debian GNU/Linux | wrong, die. branden@debian.org | -- Al Blanchard http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature