On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 07:36:11PM +0200, Stefan Gybas wrote:
> I only wanted to show that it has been impossible the get major Policy
> changes accepted in the past 4 years.
As opposed to the six years before that, when major policy changes happened
all the time? :)
> Improving the init scripts to at least catch up with other major
> distributions (status option, exit codes, chkconfig, colored output on
> supported consoles, ...) is less work than e.g. adding another
> architecture -- but it requires consensus among developers.
And how do you suppose this consensus thing works if you can't get a
consensus over the said policy changes? I sense a grave misunderstanding...
> you can file an RC bug and the maintainer has to fix it (or you can NMU).
> But you can't do this for new features unless Policy prescribes them.
That's an unhealthy fixation on serious bugs if you ask me.
> >Probably only if you file bugs without any rationale. If not, those
> >maintainers need some attitude readjustment.
>
> Ok, let's test this: I'll file 10 bug reports with example code and
> explanation against packages with init scripts that use
> start-stop-daemon asking the maintainer to add the status option and
> adjust the return code according to the current proposal. I really fear
> that I will not be very successful unless this becomes part of the
> Policy, even if I submit patches. But we'll see...
Possibly. Note that "without any rationale" is broad -- it may have a
rationale, but with which people are not satisfied. That's also due to
that whole consensus thing mentioned above. :)
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
