* Anthony Towns <[email protected]> [010325 01:11]: > BTW, I'm inclined to think it'd be a good idea for people who want to add > a "must" requirement (or to change a should to a must) to include a list of > packages that would need to be removed from the distribution due to the > change. Anyone agree/disagree?
While I appreciate your desire to increase understanding of consequences of policy changes, asking every policy change author to examine the details of `apt-cache pkgnames | wc -l` packages (on my machine, 8458 packages!) is .. well, assume someone can check each package in an average of one second, that would still take nearly two and a half hours of otherwise productive time. If examining each package took a more reasonable ten seconds, that is a whole day's work spent to find which packages will need to change to stay in the distribution. Why don't you like the current system? I have thought the proposal / vote process will keep arbitrary changes out of policy, and a package maintainer is free to change bugs against his or her package to be against policy with a note stating why compliance is difficult for his or her package. If it turns out to be too difficult for a package to comply with policy, fine, re-amend policy if the package is important enough to keep despite non-compliance. Furthermore, with releases as far apart as they are, maintainers have an average of six to eight months to fix problems with their packages.[1] I would hope something could be worked out in that time frame. I don't see anything drastically wrong with the current process. Why do you disagree with it? Cheers [1]: Yes, statistically speaking, half the time between releases. Individual cases, with individual changes, could range between 16 months to less than a day, but I doubt many policy changes are going to be made in the days before a release. -- Earthlink: The #1 provider of unsolicited bulk email to the Internet.
