Re: Bug#21969: debian-policy: needs clarification about Standards-Version
This is getting nowhere. Well, when the constitution is
ratified, maybe one can see how much support there is for more
strongly ratifying the policy documents. As it stands, I have no
motivation to work on the ``good practices'' document unless I have
any indication it is going to be useful.
>>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <email@example.com> writes:
>> I never said that. The policy document set, (currently a a set
>> that is referenced in or pointed to by the core 3 policy documents)
>> is all that I see as policy.
Dale> So, we ignore the DFSG, pay no attention to the "Debian
Dale> Manifesto", and completely ignore anything in any of the faqs,
Dale> HOWTOs, or other related documents. Policy makes no mention of
Dale> ANSI, or POSIX and may not even make reference to the File
Dale> System Standards (this one may actually be referenced, but I
Dale> haven't looked at the Policy Statement in a while and can't be
Dale> sure). Do we throw all this in the trash? NO! Of course not! Be
You are the one being unreasonable. I said there are certain
sets of documents that constitute the Debian policy
documents. That does not mean those are the only ones which
Dale> Do you deny that it is our policy to deliver functional binary
>> I fail to see this in policy, but that is because I think most
>> people would take it as given; I understand it is a critical
>> goal. In fact, this has to be added to the policy, if people do not
>> find it as an acceptable unspoken rule.
Dale> You can't have it both ways. If it is taken "as given", then how
Dale> do people "not fine it as an acceptable unspoken rule"?
Dale> Does anyone in this group think that delivering broken
Dale> executables is either implied or stated anywhere in Debian
Precisely. If following policy breaks a package, then policy
itself is broken.
Dale> In any case, I have no interest in hearing about how broken you
Dale> think it is. I understand your broken attitude, but seem
Dale> completely unable to mend it. As you seem unswayable by
Dale> "reasonable" arguments, I will cease trying.
Fine. But the moment any package ``ignores'' policy and
insists policy is not broken, so should not be fixed, I shall file
bugs against the package.
As the technical committee would look at the policy, either
the package shall follow policy, or policy shall be mended. I have no
intention of giving up on this.
vi is [[13~^[[15~^[[15~^[[19~^[[18~^ a
muk[^[[29~^[[34~^[[26~^[[32~^ch better editor than this emacs. I know
I^[[14~'ll get flamed for this but the truth has to be
said. ^[[D^[[D^[[D^[[D ^[[D^[^[[D^[[D^[[B^ Jesper Lauridsen
(firstname.lastname@example.org), from alt.religion.emacs
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com