Re: library packaging doc...
> I haven't read the document in question in a rather long time, so I
> can't actually object (on some sort of serious basis, I mean), but I
> would nevertheless request that the document be handed to the -english
> mailing list for proofreading *before* it's uploaded as a package and
> that a big "THIS IS A *GUIDE*" banner be stamped on it. The last thing
> I want is people complaining that libfoo doesn't follow some chapter
> and verse of said guide under the impression that it is somehow
> "correct", "standard" or "mandatory".
I think this proofreading has happened some time ago;
but will definitely benefit from being proof-read again.
This document has been around for more than 2 years now.
As for your objection of "correct", "standard" or "mandatory",
I would say that this document is a recommendation, and
should be followed when there is not a good argument against
it. If there is a good reason not to follow this document,
in which case I would recommend providing a patch against the
After all, what this document tried to be is to document
current practice, backed with some bugreports resulting
from mis-packaging; and tried to document a guideline on which
there was no real guideline.