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

Re: library packaging doc...


"Marcelo E. Magallon" <mmagallo@debian.org> - Sat, Jan 29, 2005:

>  What I'm saying is that -- in the same way that some people insist on
>  Debian Policy to be followed blindly -- there are already some people
>  insisting that this document be followed blindly.  "Raising" the status
>  of it to something more "official" would make things only worse.

 It's a vicious circle: the actual document can't be the official
 reference in its current state, so you don't want a package /
 debian.org web page / BTS entry for the document, so the documentation
 can't be corrected easily etc.  (Sorry if I misunderstood some parts of
 the discussion).

 I feel documentation lacks in this domain, and this documentation is
 better than nothing.  I agree it might be wrong on some points (or so I
 was told), and I propose that this guide should start with a warning
 that is is currently worked on, and did not reach an official state
 yet (something like "BETA" in red in the name should do).

 Would this documentation with a warning it's still beta be acceptable
 to enter the archive and be linked to in the devel/ section?
   This might allow others to contribute to the doc constructively by
 submitting patches, or filing bugs on the various topics that might be


Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org>

Reply to: