Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:06:39 -0600 (CST), Adam Heath <doogie@debian.org> said:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> The fact that the tool authors have not seen fit to implement some
>> functionality has nothing to do with policy (despite what you may
>> think, policy is not dpkg documentation).
> Policy is also not something that should document something that
> isn't implemented(by your own admission).
The fallacy here is the assumption that policy defines
something that needs be implemented. Policy defines how a
relationship that really exists can be documented in the Packages
files. What behaviour exactly does policy mandate that is not
implemented?
> And people reading fields is not a valid counter-argument. People
> can read *any* field, so you could argue that policy can document
> *any* field.
It sure can. As long as there is no requirement in policy that
the packaging system implement any particular behaviour, the
implement before policy thang don't apply.
manoj
--
"The arts equally have distinct departments, and unless photography
has its own possibilities of expression, separate from those of the
other arts, it is merely a process, not an art." Alfred Stieglitz,
circa 1895, about the Romantic-Impressionist school of photography
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
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: