Explanation for recently retired proposals
* #78014: [PROPOSAL] dpkg Build Directory
Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: "Eric
Gillespie Jr." <epg@pobox.com>; 2 years and 266 days old.
78014 essentially got no support, requires a change to all packages,
and there is little to gain for all that pain.
######################################################################
* #82595: [PROPOSAL] remove extraneous kernel includes from libc6-dev
Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Ben Collins
<bcollins@debian.org>; 2 years and 214 days old.
Got absolutely no support. Would probably cause Debian to differ
significantly from other distributions. Would there not also be LSB
issues if we made this change? I'm moving it out of the active
proposal list anyway; if people feel strongly about it, they can
repropose.
######################################################################
* #85500: [PROPOSED] please strengthen section 2.3.8.1's stance on
messages in postinsts
Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by:
shaleh@debian.org; 2 years and 190 days old.
The consensus seems to be that one should file bugs against packages
violating this, not a policy mod to beat the maintainers no the head
with. Also, this would need to be looked at in the view of debconf,
in this day and age.
######################################################################
* #88058: [PROPOSAL] ftp-client virtual package
Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Julian Gilbey
<jdg@debian.org>; 2 years and 171 days old.
The result of the discussion seemed to be that the package providing
the virtual client stopped doing so, and there was no consensus on
what the common functionality should be.
######################################################################
* #100586: [PROPOSAL] Upstream patches should be separated from Debian
ones.
Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: David
Martinez CSIC RedIRIS <david.martinez@rediris.es>; 2 years and 68 days
old.
This is premature as a policy proposal, we first need a working
packaging tool chain.
* #101162: Oversite in file placement for web applications
Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Chirik
<chirik@CastleFur.COM>; 2 years and 63 days old.
Got no comments, and there is no concrete proposal, or an
implementation, or anything.
######################################################################
* #101870: Update multiple version handling policies
Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Warren Turkal
<wturkal@cbu.edu>; 2 years and 58 days old.
Umm. No proposal in here - seems more like venting
frustration, or a desire for standardization, with no concrete
proposal. However, there are a number of packages that have done
similar things -- perl and python come to mind.
######################################################################
* #102917: [PROPOSED] make Mesa/GL libraries standard priority per LSB
Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Anand Kumria
<wildfire@progsoc.org>; 2 years and 50 days old.
I don't really see a policy matter here; and, anyway, this has
stalled for over two years now.
######################################################################
* #109171: Use Maildir format by default
Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Cesar Eduardo
Barros <cesarb@nitnet.com.br>; 2 years old.
Firstly, this is not a policy proposal -- and is unimplementable,
until we actually make loacal delivery agents,mail user agents, opp
and imap servers, compliant. Secondly, tit is not clear that a file
per message is the best long term archival format -- best ket the
market forces try out all kinds alternatives, and let the best format
wn. Third, there was by no means even a semblance of consensus.
######################################################################
* #119559: New relation: Upgrade-To:
Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Eduard Bloch
<blade@debian.org>; 1 year and 278 days old.
What kind of policy support is required for this? Policy does not
claim to be exhaustive about the package description, so the package
management tools can add and and on headers in the description
themselves with impunity. In any case, this is premature as a policy
proposal; the tools should be updated, and packages can start trying
the new stuff out without policy being changed.
manoj
--
And on the seventh day, He exited from append mode.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: