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

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.


Reply to: