[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: DEP-5 meta: New co-driver; current issues

[Lars Wirzenius]
> * Quite a number of packages already use some variant of the DEP-5
>   format. There's no goal to make using it mandatory, however.
>   (Compare with debhelper: almost all packages use it, but it's
>   entirely optional.)

and then you say

> If we build DEP-5 outside the normal project structures, we'll just
> have to re-discuss it when it's time to approve it, so it's better to
> have the discussion just once.

So, you guys keep saying this is just like debhelper in that it won't
be mandated, just something a lot of developers will adopt, aiming for
enough critical mass to make it useful.  You almost protest too much.

But if you start talking about "when it's time to approve it" on
debian-project, the comparison breaks down.  Why does DEP-5 need to be
"approved"?  And by whom?  Nobody had to discuss and "approve"
debhelper.  Because it's optional.  Because nobody is forced to use it.

Oddly, I'd feel better if the project drivers were _not_ trying for
explicit Project approval.  (A strange position, since I'm usually
opposed to cabal-based decision making.)


Reply to: