Re: Bug#21969: debian-policy: needs clarification about Standards-Version
Hi,
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 <dwarf@polaris.net> 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
Dale> reasonable..
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
are followed.
.
Dale> Do you deny that it is our policy to deliver functional binary
Dale> packages?
>> 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
Dale> Policy?
Precisely. If following policy breaks a package, then policy
itself is broken.
ce more:
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.
manoj
--
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
(rorschak@daimi.aau.dk), from alt.religion.emacs
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <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 debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: