Re: Sections - especially section:kde and section:gnome
Jon Dowland <jon+debian-devel@alcopop.org> writes:
> At present, the archive maintainers are responsible for defining them
> and the list is kept in the policy document (2.4). Note that this list
> is only their names.
>
> <http://packages.debian.org/unstable/> includes english text
> descriptions of the sections.
>
> * would it make sense for the english language description to be
> included in policy too? They can help to clarify exactly what the
> section is for.
As a Policy maintainer, I'd be happy to see more clarity in Policy around
when you should use particular sections *if* ftp-master is also happy with
this being something kept in Policy. If they are, I'd love it if someone
could take point on drafting text, and I'd be happy to include that. The
English text from packages.debian.org is a good start, although it would
be nice to be more specific where there are specifics to be had.
I would tend to defer to ftp-master for any redefinitions or additions to
the section list in Policy. In other words, if we did this, any change
that ftp-master asked us to make would go into Policy without needing to
follow the current approval process unless there was some project
consensus that we should do something else. That reflects ftp-master's
current role as final authority on sections. (They could and probably
generally would, of course, seek consensus on their own for section
changes before sending the Policy update.)
doc, libs, libdevel, perl, and python have clear ftp-master-imposed
definitions already, I believe, that should probably be reflected in
Policy. games has something of one (packages that provide files in
/usr/games should generally be in the games section, and /usr/games is
defined in Policy to an extent).
> * Could an archive maintainer please clarify for me please the purpose
> of the 'games' category. Specifically, is it appropriate to include
> packages which are not themselves games, but are very closely
> related or used near-exclusively for game playing? I'm thinking of
> thing like game editors (deutex, glbsp, yadex before it disappeared,
> level editors in general), game-data-packager, and emulators for
> games hardware (zsnes, snes9x, etc.)
I would say definitely yes, although I'm not an archive maintainer.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: