On Mon, Jun 17, 2002 at 10:45:09AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: > Because it's not reliable. At least some portion of it is subject to the > random whims of the package maintainers (or, far more likely, the random > whims of bug reporters and a package maintainer who is (understandably) > unaware that a few of Debian's umpteen thousand packages rely on that > particular binary being in /bin).
I'm sorry, but if the maintainers of essential packages are unaware of the fact that those packages are essential, and that major changes in those packages may have an impact on lots of other packages, then we're already in deep trouble. In any case, breakage happens. I think it's extremely unlikely in this case, but it happens, and we deal with it. If such a change were made, there would be an immediate uproar, thousands of bug reports would instantly be filed, and the maintainer would face the wrath of everyone who depends on the old order. If the maintainer were really as much of a "blows with the wind" person as you suggest, then any such change would be almost instantly reverted. In any case, the number of packages that need to run early in the init process is probably more in the dozens than the thousands. Such extreme hyperbole makes me very suspicious. Is there some sort of subtle power play going on here? If so, I disapprove. If you have a problem with the shellutils (or whatever) maintainer, please just say so, so those of us who are still trying to grasp this issue on technical terms will understand what's really going on. From where I sit, this looks superficially technical, but smells political. Especially since I haven't seen any good technical arguments from the supporters of the proposal. If a change in an essential package were to break dozens (or, hyperbolically, thousands) of packages, that would be a critical bug! Forbidding such a change in policy would add nothing to the bug severity in that case. And, if such a change were really necessary, for some reason, then forbidding it in policy would simply mean one more package that would have to be fixed (i.e. policy itself) to let such a change go through. I see no benefit to adding this to policy, only potential drawbacks. -- Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra- osis is too long [EMAIL PROTECTED] | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | volcaniconi- standalone haiku -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
