Bug#679326: debian-policy: DMUA should covered more explicitly
On 12987 March 1977, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> now that the implementation changed
>> (http://lists.debian.org/87vcf6lbw4.fsf@deep-thought.43-1.org), I
>> propose the following patch to obsolete the DM-Upload-Allowed field.
>> This patch creates a new subsection for obsoleted fields. Alternatively
>> we can concentrate the information where it is, in 5.6.25. Deleting it
>> would cause some other sub-subsections to be renumbered, so I think that
>> it is better to avoid.
> (I'm rather dubious this change in the upload process of the project can
> be constitutionally made without a new GR, but I think it's a good idea
> and I think that limitation is solely due to a bug in the original GR, so
> I don't see much point in arguing about it.)
Besides being a bug in the GR to formulate way too much how the
implementation goes, looking at the actual text of what we voted on, it
always says "the initial policy is ...". That point had been discussed
in various places and the usual outcome was "Yeah, can change it due to
that". As long as the functionality is given, which is. Technically
even better than before.
Or is (my|our) reading here that wrong?
Say, we suddenly would want DMs to upload NEW[1]. With the above reading
that would "just" be done. With a "need another GR to change this", it
probably wouldn't (so fast) be done.
[1] No we don't. Get DD. This is just an example.
--
bye, Joerg
<ftpbot> cron.daily time, unlocking: slave_NEW
<mhy> ftpbot: oh bugger off, slave_NEW isn't affected by dinstall :-)
<tomv_w> bugger off, sonst gibt es zoff!
<tomv_w> for the bilinguists
Reply to: