Re: Bug#43787: changed title, and remade the proposed change

[Chris Waters <xtifr@dsp.net>]

Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:

> Minor correction: Only if it is supported. I can think of some
> upstream software which does not support this very well or at
> all. However, if it can be supported, it should be, and if it is
> supported, it must be supported through a well defined and
> extensible interface. Bug reports which implement this feature
> should be accepted (if the patches are of acceptable quality of
> course).

The problem is that you're trying to declare all existing packages to
be buggy.  I don't think we need to do that.  I don't think most
people want to do that -- we do it too often as it is.

> But Ben should probably take out the interface suggestion until we have
> thought about it a bit longer.

Since it's just a suggestion, and it's one that the rest of the group
has agreed on as a suggestion, I don't see why Ben should be forced to
remove it.

If we leave it as a suggestion, then, once it's actually been *tried*,
and we find some horrible problem that causes it to crash and burn,
it'll be a lot easier to pull back out.

Your goal of being able to create a complete debug version of Debian
is an interesting one, but I think it's *way* beyond what we want or
need today.  Especially if it means declaring all existing packages to
be 'buggy'.  Let's put this in the *Strategy* document, rather than in
Policy!  :-)

cheers
-- 
Chris Waters   xtifr@dsp.net | I have a truly elegant proof of the
      or    xtifr@debian.org | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr     | this .signature file.