Re: library packaging doc...
"Marcelo E. Magallon" <email@example.com> - 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
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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>