Re: packages affected list for must changes to policy (was: Re: Bug#91257: [PROPOSED] changes to X font policy)

2001-03-28 Thread Anthony Towns
On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 09:35:36AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote: On 25-Mar-01, 04:26 (CST), Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: If you create a must directive, then you've just created a reason to have a number of extra RC bugs. Indeed, that's the only point of making it a must

Re: packages affected list for must changes to policy (was: Re: Bug#91257: [PROPOSED] changes to X font policy)

2001-03-28 Thread Steve Greenland
On 27-Mar-01, 23:57 (CST), Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 09:35:36AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote: Encouraging I could agree with, particularly when the check could be automated against the Packages file. But even an automated check against the

Re: packages affected list for must changes to policy (was: Re: Bug#91257: [PROPOSED] changes to X font policy)

2001-03-26 Thread Steve Greenland
On 25-Mar-01, 04:26 (CST), Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: If you create a must directive, then you've just created a reason to have a number of extra RC bugs. Indeed, that's the only point of making it a must instead of a should. The point of making a must requirement is that the

packages affected list for must changes to policy (was: Re: Bug#91257: [PROPOSED] changes to X font policy)

2001-03-25 Thread Seth Arnold
* Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [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

Re: packages affected list for must changes to policy (was: Re: Bug#91257: [PROPOSED] changes to X font policy)

2001-03-25 Thread Anthony Towns
On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 01:46:59AM -0800, Seth Arnold wrote: * Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [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

Re: packages affected list for must changes to policy (was: Re: Bug#91257: [PROPOSED] changes to X font policy)

2001-03-25 Thread Seth Arnold
* Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [010325 02:30]: If you're not going to bother filing the RC bugs, there's no reason not to leave it as a should. If you are going to file the RC bugs, then someone's got to figure out which packages it applies to at some point anyway. This makes sense if

Re: packages affected list for must changes to policy (was: Re: Bug#91257: [PROPOSED] changes to X font policy)

2001-03-25 Thread Jason Henry Parker
Seth Arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [010325 02:30]: There's 6720 packages in sid/i386 at the moment, btw, not 8458. Thanks for the correction. At ten seconds per package, this is still nearly nineteen hours though. Luckily we have these marvellous

Re: packages affected list for must changes to policy (was: Re: Bug#91257: [PROPOSED] changes to X font policy)

2001-03-25 Thread Anthony Towns
On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 09:39:56PM +1000, Jason Parker wrote: Seth Arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [010325 02:30]: There's 6720 packages in sid/i386 at the moment, btw, not 8458. Thanks for the correction. At ten seconds per package, this is still