Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Minor correction: Only if it is supported. I can think of some
> upstream software which does not support this very well or at
> all. However, if it can be supported, it should be, and if it is
> supported, it must be supported through a well defined and
> extensible interface. Bug reports which implement this feature
> should be accepted (if the patches are of acceptable quality of
> course).
The problem is that you're trying to declare all existing packages to
be buggy. I don't think we need to do that. I don't think most
people want to do that -- we do it too often as it is.
> But Ben should probably take out the interface suggestion until we have
> thought about it a bit longer.
Since it's just a suggestion, and it's one that the rest of the group
has agreed on as a suggestion, I don't see why Ben should be forced to
remove it.
If we leave it as a suggestion, then, once it's actually been *tried*,
and we find some horrible problem that causes it to crash and burn,
it'll be a lot easier to pull back out.
Your goal of being able to create a complete debug version of Debian
is an interesting one, but I think it's *way* beyond what we want or
need today. Especially if it means declaring all existing packages to
be 'buggy'. Let's put this in the *Strategy* document, rather than in
Policy! :-)
cheers
--
Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
