Re: Bug#21969: debian-policy: needs clarification about Standards-Version
On Thu, 7 May 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 1998, Oliver Elphick wrote:
>
> > Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > >On 7 May 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > >
> > >> 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.
> > >
> > >Which I will happily reasign to Policy.
> >
> > Hang on, Dale. Just think about this.
> >
> > A package ignores policy - the only good reason is that policy is
> > inappropriate to this particular package.
> >
> > In that case, the policy is inadequate - file a bug against policy,
> > requesting a better definition.
> >
> >
> > But if the package maintainer says that policy is _not_ broken, the
> > fault must be with the package.
>
> Not true.
>
> If the package maintainer says that policy is not broken and the bug
> report says that the package violates policy, I would suggest that the
> policy needs ammending to clarify the issue and would reassign the bug
> accordingly.
>
> > You are saying that you would reassign a bug to policy, while at the
> > same time denying that policy is broken? That does not make sense.
>
> Sure!
>
> Hasn't it been clear from the discusion between Manoj and myself that we
> each take different interpretations from the same document. I say the
> document is adequate for me to make the decision that it is proper for
> particular binaries to be delivered unstripped. This is clear to me from
> the Policy that I understand. From Manoj's point of view this is very
> unclear and should be fixed.
>
> I have no problems clarifying the document for others, even when I think I
> understand it correctly.
>
> If I believe that I am following the "full" Policy (while appearing to
> violate a specific clause) I have no problem with Policy being made more
> specific, for those who don't see things the way I do.
>
> BTW, I believe that this is why Ian wants a "Technical Committee". These
> kinds of debates cry out for a third party arbitration technique.
If I understand what you mean, you claim that the general rule that no
package should be broken justifies breaking any other policy rule. But if
you do so, expect other people to file bugs against your packages for not
following policy. You'll have to explain the issue to all of them until
policy is amended, so why not immediately file a bug against policy?
The "no package should be broken" rule isn't wrong, but any other rule may
be wrong. The problem is, you don't know a rule is wrong until you
encounter a package that breaks itself or other packages if you follow
that rule for that particular package. The "binaries should be stripped"
rule is a good example here.
My view is this: if you think one or more packages break if a particular
part of policy is followed, then that part of policy is broken. And if
something (a package, policy or whatever) in Debian is broken, a bug
should be filed against it.
Does anybody disagree with the above paragraph? If not, can this
discussion please stop? I am getting the impression that everybody already
agrees with everybody else without knowing so.
Remco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: