|--==> C Gatzemeier writes:
CG> Openly pushing some configuration manager is of course not better than doing CG> so implicitly by pushing policy for config manipulation functionality. CG> In the proposed policy change the maintainer scipts asked for are the beasts. CG> Each complying maintainer will have to provide and maintain their own beast. CG> Instead of policy pushing I'd see the job of CDDs to work on solutions CG> together with other maintainers. CG> Look at debconf, it is there. Some improvements to debconf or a helper library CG> could greatly ease maintainer script writing/maintainig. CG> Using the helper library should be easier than doing all by hand in the CG> maintainer scripts. CG> With such a library a policy change would be obsolete. A policy change without CG> such a library would still require the library or be quite suboptimal. Probably both paths should be followed. I think that a policy change would greatly help in making maintainers aware of the issue, and encourage them in either changing their packages or accept patches from other developers. On the other hand, we should try along with the policy change propose and offer some facilities (debhelper scripts, debconf tricks, configuration manager or whatever) to easy the task of be compliant to the policy. Anyway I think that the multi-level approach is in most of the case very effective and the wording of the policy change proposed by Bart is a good start in my opinion. Cheers, Free -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
