Re: Policy as rule of law, or whatever
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com> writes:
> I would prefer that the policy mention that,in rare cases,
> there are exceptions to the rule, and mention the debugging libraries
> as an example. This would make the policy more novice friendly, and
> make it easier for the next person who has a debugging library. It
> would also cut down on the bug reports from people who do not know
> better.
Defining the "key words" as in RFC2119, and editing the policy
manual to makes sure the appropriate "key words" are used throughout
would essentially serve this purpose. However, there is no reason not
to amplify the definitions by additional notes in specific places in
the policy documents.
> I think a policy which reflected reality (and real life) and
> explicitly acknowledges the fact that most rules have exceptions, is
> more palatable anyway.
>
> Perhaps in such cases policy should also mention that "such
> exceptions are required only infrequently, and it is recommended that
> you mention that your package requires this on debian-devel" or some
> such.
If we adapt the RFC2119 definitions for the policy manual, we
could modify them to fit our needs. The definition of SHOULD could
be:
SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course. When such an
item is ignored, this fact, and the reasons for it, should be
mentioned on the debian-devel mailing list. The same information
should be included in the package's README.Debian file.
Bob
--
_
|_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilliard <hilliard@flinet.com>
|_) (_) |_) Palm City, FL USA PGP Key ID: A8E40EB9
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: