Re: Upcoming Policy plans
Jonathan Yu <jonathan.i.yu@gmail.com> writes:
> Agreed on all counts. I've been out of the game for awhile and it would
> be nice to have something in Policy to read about multiarch, so that I
> can catch up on the state of the art.
Yeah, I've had the same problem. :) I learn all sorts of things about
Debian by writing things up for Policy. I think with the latest
discussions I've wrapped my mind around most of the issues.
> I think of the three mentioned items, MultiArch is the most important,
> as it affects the most things, followed by symbol files. As you note,
> we've gotten away without the trigger documentation for awhile, probably
> in part because it's not needed as often as symbol files and MultiArch
> are.
That feels right to me as well. I started with symbols files because it's
settled, whereas multiarch was still in flux, but hopefully multiarch will
be settling shortly.
> Having read some of your later comments, I have to admit that I think
> your plan is quite ambitious, but long overdue. I will keep an eye on
> this mailing list and try to devote some spare cycles to proofreading
> the proposed changes.
Wonderful, thank you!
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: