Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> writes: > Can't we have both? Actually, I think a policy is quite an important > tool because it shows definitly what one can expect from a package. Of > course, policy can be changed, but just ignoring policy is only breaking > expectations. And if you want to change policy, I'd rather expect a mail > like "proposed change to the python policy", then just breaking policy > in one of your packages (this is BTW the difference between changing > policy and breaking it). Please stop, there is no Python policy, even the Developer's page says it is a "proposed subpolicy", and currently it is still a draft. A policy is good when it enforces proper packaging decisions while leaving implementations free in what is not covered wy the policy. So please let us finish good and working technical solutions before freezing everything and calling it a "policy". During our work on tools we discovered many problems which resulted in huge changes of the draft, so the work on the draft would be finished when we are sure of what to enforce on all cases. Moreover, the policy should not enforce usage of a technical solution, this would break the competition between the two implementations. -- Marc Dequènes (Duck)
Attachment:
pgp8G2xmQSVHA.pgp
Description: PGP signature