On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 06:21:35PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> You have your points. I'd suggest to discuss 'where sub-policies belong to' in
> debian-policy mailing list or we can file a bug against debian-policy to
> clarify that issue, since the current paragraphs of #1.4, #11.9, #11.9 show
> perl-policy as part debian-policy package and emacs-policy as a separate
> package. I think that all sub-policies should obey same rules.
I agree the way you propose is _the_ proper way to go.
However I, as an ocaml maintainer and policy author, do not have the
time/willingness to proceed that way, mainly because it is not my aim
right now. If Samuel (or someone else of course) is willing to take part
in the discussion that would be great.
Otherwise --- or even in the meantime --- I would go for following what
other programming languages sub-policy did in the past (perl and python
mainly). That is: ask for inclusion in the debian-policy package.
Note that I indeed do not see the urgency of our policy to be included
in debian-policy, but at the same time I don't see why we shouldn't.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity
of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature