Re: ideas underlying policy
Raul Miller <rdm@test.legislate.com> writes:
> >> This is the second draft of this document <<
>
> I think I've waited long enough for comments on the points where I asked
> questions. Which is to say: I'm winging it.
>
> If there are no substantial comments on this for a while, it'll
> probably be time to go over it again to clean up issues of grammar
> and voice.
This is a very good document, indeed I think it should go into the policy
package. I have one brief comment:
> It's important to understand policy when putting together a package.
> If you find yourself having to do something which seems to conflict
> with policy -- where it seems like you should do things differently,
> please take a moment and reflect on the issue. If you take another
> look at the policy you might see that there is some provision for the
> underlying issue you're trying to address. If after careful review you
> still think policy is flawed in some way, then please include a comment
> to that effect in your package's change log, and please file a bug
> report against policy. You probably also want to leave a comment in the
> changelog when you agree with the approach recommended by policy.
I'd like to suggest that the issue be raised on debian-policy at some
stage, preferably before the package was released. Similar to the way we
request developers to notify debian-devel about an intent to create a
package, I think we should ask them to notify debian-policy about a
potential policy conflict with their package.
Martin.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: