Re: Bug#609160: DEP5: CANDIDATE and ready for use in squeeze+1
- To: debian-policy@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#609160: DEP5: CANDIDATE and ready for use in squeeze+1
- From: Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 09:21:25 +1100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 874o988p7e.fsf@benfinney.id.au>
- References: <1294581615.20273.71.camel@havelock.lan> <20110109141838.GA8895@jwilk.net> <1294583264.20273.83.camel@havelock.lan> <20110109143328.GA8053@glandium.org> <1294584202.20273.86.camel@havelock.lan> <20110110070321.GB21995@virgil.dodds.net> <20110110095631.GA7254@upsilon.cc> <20110115195123.GD8374@virgil.dodds.net> <[🔎] 20110115223812.GA24366@upsilon.cc> <20110116130141.GF28726__10205.5929405198$1295183362$gmane$org@merveille.plessy.net>
Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> writes:
> There is another reason why I would not support an alignment on the
> Policy's version number: from the begining we promised that DEP-5 was
> not an attempt to modify the Policy.
I don't recall that promise ever being made. Rather, the promise in the
first revision of the wiki page for discussion was “This is not a
proposal to change the policy in the short term.”
<URL:http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat?action=recall&rev=1>
That leaves open, intentionally in my view, the option to become a
proposal to change Policy when it later became appropriate. The DEP
process seems a good route to achieveing that.
> If in a second and separate step there is a consensus for merging, I
> would be very pleased, but I really think that it should be after a
> large number of packages use the DEP, and after parsers produce data
> of which the benefits are widely recognised.
+1 to all that.
--
\ “Oh, I realize it's a penny here and a penny there, but look at |
`\ me: I've worked myself up from nothing to a state of extreme |
_o__) poverty.” —Groucho Marx |
Ben Finney
Reply to: