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

Re: Please remove RFCs from the documentation in Debian packages

(Please don't CC: me, I'm in the list)

On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:00:47PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña]
> > (For those who are not aware of this issue, please read #92810)
> There seem to be someone believing that standard documents should be
> treated as software.  Standards are not software.  Standards do not
> improve if everyone is allowed to modify them and publish the modified
> version as an updated version of the standard.  Standards get their
> value from having a rigid procedure for updates and modifications.
> Software do not.

I'm sure that's true. Unfortunately, we only have guidelines to accept
software into Debian, and those are the DFSG. There is no such thing (yet)
as a "Debian Free Documentation Guidelines", so we have to treat them with
the only guidelines we have at the moment. I encourage you to read the
Debian Documentation Draft Policy, available at
http://www.debian.org/doc/ddp-policy/, which discusses some of the issues
related to documentation, improve it and make it evolve into a proper
policy for Debian.

> I believe this whole case of RFC standards are not confirming to The
> Debian Free Software Guidelines display a complete lack of
> understanding of the value of standards, and should be rejected.
> Standards are not software, nor software manuals, and should not be
> treated as such.

Unfortunately you are misjudging here. Please read the bug reports.

> I haven't been following this case, and understand it might be late to
> speak up against it, but believe it is about time the whole case is
> stopped.

The only way to "stop" this case is to produce a proper set of guidelines 
for documentation in Debian that would cover this (an other) cases, have a 
vote on it and get it approved as part of our own guidelines. If you want 
to help, you are welcome.



Attachment: pgpWP8q7zkwfY.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: