Re: Updated python-support
Le lundi 19 juin 2006 à 12:15 +0200, Andreas Barth a écrit :
> Don't you think it might be a good idea to explain the policy better if
> it is not understood correctly?
If high-grade developers need explanations, you can't expect the policy
to be widely understood in the long term.
> Also, please explain why you think "the python transition was going to a
> dead end". I cannot see it.
Because it is being rushed for the sake of a single person, against the
opinion of almost all fellow developers, with a broken building system.
> You mean, after we all put time and energy into a discussion, agreed on
> some results, and put some more work into the results, you're just going
> to tell us that you will ignore all of that? That sounds like a rather
> large slap into people's faces.
No, I'm telling you that I will ignore *part* of that. The broken part.
If it were only for me to decide, I would indeed ignore all of that,
because the old policy was better. Remember: the *whole* current
situation was created by Matthias Klose and only him. Everybody agreed
to migrate to python2.4 before thinking of policy improvements calmly
for etch+1.
> > Is it really useful? (This is a real question.) Isn't it possible to
> > follow it just as easily with a script, avoiding to put cruft where it
> > doesn't belong?
>
> You could claim the same for all information in the source packages file
> or the control file.
Please don't play with words and show real examples.
> A policy becomes also effective when violations of a policy lead to
> packages exclusion from the next stable release.
So what? Do you want working packages, or do you want packages
conforming to a policy? Are you going to exclude dozens of packages just
because they are lacking a control field nobody uses?
Threats don't lead anywhere. I thought you'd know that.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\
: :' : josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org
`. `' joss@debian.org
`- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Reply to: