Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 08:00:55AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
>> does the current patch (attached) address your concerns ? If yes, would
>> you second it ?
>
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to make one more call for feedback.
Sorry for the long silence.
My feeling is that the patch is not ready yet. I know that without some
more specific list of concerns that is not a very useful thing to say,
but that's what I have. In other words, I don't think it's ready for
seconds.
If I end up with time to work on it, what I would probably do is to
split the patch into smaller changes that can be considered and
applied independently, which would hopefully be less intimidating for
area experts to review.
For example, a patch adding documentation of the non-trigger Dpkg
states and how the package installation procedure interacts with them
should be uncontroversial and easy to review.
With triggers, one of the hardest parts to document is how packagers
are supposed to deal with the "dependencies may not be configured"
bug. Mentioning the bug as you have is good, but giving some
practical advice about how to work around it ("Do not rely on a sane
state being present" is not practical advice because it doesn't say
what to do when your dependencies are missing) would be better. Maybe
policy should only define the -noawait variant for now?
Thanks, and sorry I do not have something more useful to offer,
Jonathan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130803164159.GA2893@elie.Belkin
