On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 13:41:47 +0200, Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 04:51:29PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> > No, I mean that a complete consistency in the set of 10K packages >> > is practically impossible to achieve, let alone sustain. And then >> > there's always situations where it seems wrong to demote all >> > non-default alternatives to extra just because there has to be a >> > default. >> >> Are you arguing that we should then give up having policy at all, >> since it is all futile? > No, I'm not. Read the next sentence. (This is not meant as a flame, > although your sentence certainly seems like it was.) Well, no, I did not mean it to be a flame either; since it was a logical consequence of what seemed to me your stance. >> > We can and should strive towards the goal, but insisting on that >> > this must be done is not a particularly productive use of >> > anyone's time and makes the Policy Manual more an idealist rather >> > than a prudent document, and that is not in its scope. >> >> Ah. But policy never insists on anything. Policy just is. It >> defines the rules that allow invariants to be maintained by >> packages in Debian that allow for closer integration or improve end >> user usage patterns. Policy does not have an enforcement arm. > None of that means that Policy should have 'must' rules that are so > idealist that they are pointless (barring the current case where > Santiago says he worked it all out -- I've taken his word for it and > didn't reply further). Why is having proper priority on a package a goal that is so hard to realize that it is idealistic? I mean, the fix to a wrong priority is not hard; you change the control file, and petition ftp admin with a mail stating the rationale for the priority change. > "All software in our distribution must not have too many bugs." -- > that would certainly "allow for closer integration or improve end > user usage patterns", but we're not writing that. Not because we > can't enforce it, but because it would be pointless. The difference here is that fixing all bugs, known and unknown, is indeed harder and less deterministic than changing a line in the control file and sending a mail message. It may require a modicum of though, and perhaps some communication with the maintainers of related packages -- and if a maintainer things that is too much effort to ask for, should that maintainer really be in Debian? manoj -- Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi. (What Jove may do, is not permitted to a cow.) Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C