Package: java-common Version: 0.25 Severity: normal Is java-policy normative? That is, is a violation of a "should" or "must" clause in java-policy a "policy violation" and thus an RC bug? My belief is not, because a) it doesn't state in java-policy that it is a "sub-policy" b) java-policy is not listed in debian-policy as a sub-policy <http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-scope.html#s-related> By way of comparison, debian-policy makes explicit reference to the perl sub-policy, but states "Perl programs and modules should follow the current Perl policy" -- so violating the perl sub-policy is not automatically RC (as "should" != "must" or "required"). Either way, some clarity in the java-policy would be useful (perhaps in an "About this document" section). I'd have a stab at it myself, but I am unclear which situation is correct :) If it is desired that this is a sub-policy, some changes to debian-policy would also be required. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-1-686 Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) -- no debconf information
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature