Re: ITP: Debian History
On Tue, Nov 09, 1999 at 01:37:35PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
> > David have just said this one is optional.
> Yes, it appears that it is.
> > But if some package breaks the policy
> > EVERY MAINTAINER WHO FINDS IT SHOULD FILL A REPORT
Read these 2 lines again. This was general claiming.
> IT DOESN'T BREAK THE POLICY.
> There are two clauses here:
> This contains all packages that conflict with others with
> required, important, standard or optional priorities,
> are only likely to be useful if you already know what they
> are or have specialised requirements.
this is neither arabtex (tex using or i18n is specialised requirement?)
they should be both optional
and no package should go extra without some prior thinking about
if it really should
and the only doc that should go to extra is doc describing extra package
(this is what we have now really. dont change it)