Re: Alternative proposal: reaffirm maintainers technical competence over the software they maintain
Luca Falavigna <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> 2. Specific init systems as PID 1
> Debian packages may require a specific init system to be executed
> as PID 1 if their maintainers consider this a requisite for its proper
> operation by clearly mark this in package descriptions and/or
> by adding dependencies in order to enforce this; and no patches
> or other derived works exist in order to support other init systems
> in such a way to render software usable to the same extent.
Weird grammar here. "marking" and "the software" would be better, but it
still sounds awkward.
> 3. Evidence of defects (bugs)
> We strongly reaffirm Debian maintainers are not deliberately hiding
> problems (Social Contract #3). No technical decisions shall be
> overruled if no proper evidence of defects, issued in the Debian Bug
> Tracking system, is found. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt are not
> considered as evidence of defects.
(Not a Debian Developer, but still curious)
What's the motivatior and intention of this paragraph? I don't see how
it connects to the rest of the proposal. Especially the last sentence
sounds unneccessary. No one would dispute that FUD is not evidence of
defects, the dispute is always what is FUD and what are hard facts (and
the statement doesn't help with making that distinction at all).
GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F
Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F
»Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«