Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> But our users should not be expected to look at control files in order
> to know what to install, should they?
> Following this reasoning, we might suggest that policy only states the
> mandatory fields in control, and any field not covered by policy
> should just be ignored by our tools... That way, I could put this cool
> line in my control files:
> Greetings: Hi mom!
> and it would parse just fine. And yes, I can ask my mom to go and
> check if there is something fun in my packaging...
You can do that now. I don't see what your point is.
My point, is that policy is describing a field, as being implemented, when the
tools have not implemented it yet.
When the tools finally do implement it, it might be discovered that what
policy says is wrong, and the tools have to do it differently. This is
generally frowned against.
Besides, the policy czars have said publically on several occasions that
implementation should come before documentation in policy.