Re: Policy as rule of law, or whatever
On Wed, May 20, 1998 at 03:50:45PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> ] ] How about the following: we define and use MUST and SHOULD in some
> ] ] appropriate way, and then say:
> ] ]
> ] ] If a package violates a policy MUST [or the conditions for a SHOULD,
> ] ] if any] then this is either a bug in policy or in the package. A
> ] ] maintainer who notices this while creating such a package should
> ] ] report the bug against what they feel is the appropriate package.
> ] ]
> ] ] Then we can use the bug resolution procedure to fix the problem.
>
> Did you mean to agree with that ?
Yes, I meant that agreed with your whole post, but decided to quote
only the introduction. Apologies for the confusion.
> My wording in my proposal above was very careful to avoid notions like
> `binding', `must', and implications of power. Rather, it merely says
> that packages and policy should be consistent, and that if they're not
> then one of them should be fixed.
This I agree with. However I believe that there is a perception at
present that if policy does not seem to fit your package, you may simply
ignore it. I do not think that works.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt, hamish@debian.org, hamish@rising.com.au, hmoffatt@mail.com
Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5
CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: