[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Thwarting Policy via BTS

Quite correct, my choice of words was misleading.  I should have said
"conventions" instead of "rules".

-- John

Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> writes:

> > In fact, as I pointed out before, the rules explicitly prohibit what
> > you have done.
> John, while I feel your pain (24 minutes?!), I have to point out that the
> developer's reference is not formal debian policy[1], and no formal debian
> policy document talks about NMU's. This is because policy documents say what
> must be in packages and how they must behave, but it is out of their scope
> to control how developers behave.
> I only want to make this point so people don't start getting the impression
> that the developer's reference is policy, or that policy controls what
> people may and may not do. I'm not trying to condone Thomas's action.
> -- 
> see shy jo
> [1] "Furthermore, this document is _not an expression of formal policy_. It
>     contains documentation for the Debian system, and generally agreed-upon
>     best practices."

John Goerzen   Linux, Unix consulting & programming   jgoerzen@complete.org |
Developer, Debian GNU/Linux (Free powerful OS upgrade)       www.debian.org |
The 958,410th digit of pi is 9.

Reply to: