Bug#1067079: Clarify that policy on a technology does not implicitly mandate that technology

2024-03-26 Thread Russ Allbery
Josh Triplett writes: > Mostly, recent discussions in various places regarding whether packages > are required to use *cron* to run periodic jobs. Policy says what > packages must do if they install a cronjob, but that itself does not > mandate the use of cron specifically. It seemed worth

Bug#1067079: Clarify that policy on a technology does not implicitly mandate that technology

2024-03-26 Thread Sean Whitton
Hello, On Tue 26 Mar 2024 at 10:11am -06, Sam Hartman wrote: >> "Josh" == Josh Triplett writes: > > > > I tend to agree with Sean that your rationale is not convincing. > It sounds like you want to use policy as a stick to hit people > over the head and say "policy is not a stick." This

Bug#1067079: Clarify that policy on a technology does not implicitly mandate that technology

2024-03-26 Thread Sam Hartman
> "Josh" == Josh Triplett writes: I tend to agree with Sean that your rationale is not convincing. It sounds like you want to use policy as a stick to hit people over the head and say "policy is not a stick." I get the impression that you are trying to shift the status quo somehow, and

Bug#1067079: Clarify that policy on a technology does not implicitly mandate that technology

2024-03-24 Thread Josh Triplett
On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 12:08:10PM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote: > Thanks. For the time being, I myself am not convinced. Policy is not a > stick to beat maintainers with, as we say, but I'm not sure that idea is > one that ought to be in Policy itself. Having observed many attempts to use Policy

Bug#1067079: Clarify that policy on a technology does not implicitly mandate that technology

2024-03-22 Thread Sean Whitton
Hello, On Mon 18 Mar 2024 at 04:06am -07, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 05:38:15PM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote: >> Was there some recent packaging situation that prompted you to think >> about this? I'm cautious about adding it in the absence of that. > > Mostly, recent

Bug#1067079: Clarify that policy on a technology does not implicitly mandate that technology

2024-03-18 Thread Josh Triplett
On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 05:38:15PM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote: > Was there some recent packaging situation that prompted you to think > about this? I'm cautious about adding it in the absence of that. Mostly, recent discussions in various places regarding whether packages are required to use

Bug#1067079: Clarify that policy on a technology does not implicitly mandate that technology

2024-03-18 Thread Sean Whitton
Hello Josh, Was there some recent packaging situation that prompted you to think about this? I'm cautious about adding it in the absence of that. -- Sean Whitton

Bug#1067079: Clarify that policy on a technology does not implicitly mandate that technology

2024-03-17 Thread Josh Triplett
Package: debian-policy Version: 4.6.2.1 Severity: normal Tags: patch X-Debbugs-Cc: j...@joshtriplett.org This proposal adds a paragraph to Policy to explicitly state that having policy about *how* to use a particular technology or mechanism is not necessarily policy *requiring* the use of that