Keith Packard <kei...@keithp.com> writes: > That is an entirely separate issue. I agree that it is important and > needs to be resolved, but the Technical Committee is the wrong place to > be designing this policy. We must (by 6.3.5) not engage in design of new > proposals and policies.
Well, in defense of the discussion that Steve, Colin, and I have been having, I do think it's worthwhile for the TC to try to hammer out a compromise on that point as well and express it as either technical advice to the project or as technical policy. While it may not have been explicitly listed in the message that referred this debate to the TC, the question of logind dependencies and the question of how to handle packages that no longer support a lowest-common-denominator sysvinit script have come up repeatedly in the interminable debian-devel discussions on this topic. I believe they're controversial questions and that we'd benefit from hashing out a reasonable approach in the TC context and offering it as advice. I also don't think that the approaches that we're discussing at the moment involve design work or are at all novel. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
