Hello,
On Tue 02 Apr 2024 at 04:18pm +01, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Sean Whitton wrote:
>> On Tue 26 Mar 2024 at 10:11am -06, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> > 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 he
Josh Triplett writes:
> Nonetheless, if the Policy editors are opposed to documenting something
> despite it being collectively known to be the case, and do not feel that
> any possible wording change would change that position, then I will not
> push for it further.
I have already suggested a w
Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Tue 26 Mar 2024 at 10:11am -06, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > 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 was basically my concern.
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 explic
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 wa
> "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 re
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 a
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 discussion
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 *cron
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
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 tec
11 matches
Mail list logo