Re: upstream field in package description
Es geschah am Mittwoch 01 Juni 2005 21:58 als Chris Waters schrieb:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 04:08:54PM +0200, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> > Because if it would get part of the policy to be mandatory , then
> > developers would get stressed or at least noticed/pointed to by
> > (hopefully
> > policy-updated) packaging scripts.
>
> You misunderstand the purpose of policy. "Policy is not a club to
> beat developers". The purpose of policy is to decide which packages
> are so buggy that they should be removed from the archive before
> release!
My intention is not to beat anybody. My proposal was an top-down approach,
being the policy a guideline for packagers.
> You're putting the cart before the horse. Get the packages
> to change, and THEN we'll consider changing policy to match.
Well, your suggestion sounds to me like "putting the cart before the horse".
If "getting the packages to change" would easily realisable then there would
be no need for a policy.
How should I ever get packagers to accept my proposal when there's no
guideline covering it? Opening a wishlist item against every single package?
No Debian maintainer would ever add a new, undocumented field, which actually
makes sense, because what if everybody adds his own fields, or even worse -
adding the same information with different field names? I would call that
chaos and that's why it should be specified - by the policy.
Ok, seems I cannot convince anybody here. That just proofs me once again that
moving something in Debian is almost impossible, at least if you are not a
VIP.
Shutting up now ....
CU
Christian
P.S. please CC me as I'm offlist !
(and no, my email client doesn't offer Mail-Followup-To header field)
Reply to: