On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 05:41:44PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: > On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 01:22:50PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > > I would prefer to let this rest until the initial amendment is in Policy, > > since it's not very easy to get seconds and this amendment is already > > overdue. > > Surely it's possible to change a proposed amendment before it is > accepted? That's the whole point of discussing it. > > Seconding is supposed to mean "I think this proposal is worth > considering". If it means "I think this proposal is perfect as > written", then our policy process is no longer lightweight.
Yes, but if I amend the proposal like this, then it needs to be seconded all over again, doesn't it? I am not convinced that it would be possible to get sponsors again in a timely manner. I'd rather if we don't drag this any more. Plugins have existed for years, this bug was filed almost a year ago, and the patch is almost as old. If this becomes an ammendment now, the next version of Policy will contain it (due to be released within a month, I most sincerely hope). It won't be perfect, but it will be fairly acceptable. I will reopen the bug (or file a new one) and then we can go through the discussion and requesting for sponsors again. > > Besides, hopefully nobody will try to make their plugins unstripped in > > the meantime. > > There are already plugins that are not compiled with -fPIC, though. > (megahal and wine have some on my system.) Hmm, but is there a reason against that, are we certain that those plugins must be relocatable? -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
