Control: reassign -1 debian-policy 4.0.0.4
Control: affects -1 + tech-ctte
Hi Sean,
Le mardi, 1 août 2017, 11.01:10 h CEST Sean Whitton a écrit :
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 02:55:31PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > We also approved the decision that packages should not include both a
> > menu file and a desktop file.
>
> For reference, Policy currently says that packages should include a
> desktop file, and may also include a menu file for the sake of old
> window managers.
>
> So the change that was approved is:
For reference, the TC decision was announced on d-d-announce:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2015/09/msg00000.html
And, as far as I could tell, although the specific commit has made its way into
Policy, point 2 of the TC decision still needs wording:
> 2. In addition to those changes, the Technical Committee resolves
> that packages providing a .desktop file shall not also provide a
> menu file for the same application.
So yes, point 2 corresponds to your:
> - delete that paragraph
> - add a new paragraph saying "if there is a desktop file, there should
> be no menu file"
Point 3 & 4 are up to the maintainers of 'menu'; point 5 & 6 just state where
in policy the fine-tuning of the menu integration should happen.
> This is not strictly equivalent to "packages should not include both a
> menu file and a desktop file", but given that we have deprecated menu
> files, it seems like the right way to reflect the change.
At the risk of sounding procedural, "right way" or not, the TC has used its
power under §6.1.1 and set policy for that change.
> > The action to draft language for that has stalled in the policy
> > process.
>
> Is there a policy bug that got stalled? If not, maybe this bug should
> just be reassigned to policy?
We filed that bug at times when the policy team seemed unable to get to that
subject on its own; we also set to work on specific wording ever since (without
success), and finally decided to assign some of us to work on that during
DebConf17.
That said, now that thanks to new forces, the process seems vivid and strong
again, it does indeed make sense to reassign that to Policy. I'm hereby doing
this, marking the TC as "affected". We'd still be happy to help on the
wording, ideally during DebConf!
Many thanks in advance for your energy to get this to closure!
Cheers,
OdyXAttachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.