On Wednesday 04 January 2006 15:18, you wrote: > > please use the wontfix tag instead of closing, this seems to be a > > textbook case of what the tag is for (and would avoid the whole 'again' > > frustration'). > > Sorry, but I have never been a big fan of the wontfix tag. Either a bug > is a bug and should be fixed, or it is not and should be closed. > There is no excuse for not reading the documentation. <shrug> A FAQ isn't the primary place were I expect to find information about a feature request, the BTS is (BTS is documentation also). Given your comment 'not again' I don't seem to be alone in that expectation.
=> by all means close the bug, instead of using wontfix, but do realize that
the repeated filing of this request seems a logical consequence
</shrug>
> You are welcome to propose a policy change mandating the profile.d thing.
why would we need a policy to allow it? I don't see anything in policy that
prevent's this.
> Until then, I consider the profile.d thing as something harmful, as it
> would open a can of worms.
Given that:
- policy already prohibits your stated harmfull use of profile.d (you
helpfully give the quote in the FAQ)
- there are non-harmfull uses of profile.d. The reason I filed this bug,
which I explained in my previous message, gives one example.
I'm at a loss as to what exactly the 'can of worms' is that would be opened.
On the other hand providing it would allow me to fix an existing bug filed
by one of our users.
In short it's the responsibility of Debian Policy to stop packagers from
doing harmfull things, not base-files. And this is stopping me from
providing a solution for a reported problem by one of our users (atmittedly
in an edge case), which flies in the face of the social contract IMO.
Remaining questions:
- Are there any harmfull uses of a profile.d dir that the policy quote given
in the FAQ doesn't adress (in the absence of such the can of worms thing is
not a valid argument)? If so what are they?
- Or do you perhaps disagree with my assertion that the use I would put it
to is non-harmfull?
--
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB)
2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double
format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam)
pgpVE5RExvaHh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
