Bug#31645: [PROPOSED] Explicitly making the Packaging Manual a Policy Document
Package: packaging-manual
Version: 2.5.0.0
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
[Robert Woodcock <rcw@debian.org> points out that the Packaging
manual states that it is not policy]
In that case, I think I do owe Wichert an aopology. I think I
would like to change those paragraphs to the following:
______________________________________________________________________
This manual describes the technical aspects of creating Debian binary
and source packages. It also documents the interface between `dselect'
and its access method scripts. It does not deal with the Debian
- Project policy requirements, and it assumes familiarity with `dpkg''s
- functions from the system administrator's perspective.
+ Projects non-technical policy requirements, which are covered in a
+ related document, and it assumes familiarity with `dpkg''s functions
+ from the system administrator's perspective. As far as the technical
+ aspects go, this document has the weight of Debian Policy.
[snip]
- It does _not_ describe the policy requirements imposed on Debian
+ It does _not_ describe _all_ the policy requirements imposed on Debian
packages, such as the permissions on files and directories,
documentation requirements, upload procedure, and so on. You should
- see the Debian packaging policy manual for these details. (Many of
+ see the Debian Policy Manual for these details. (Many of
them will probably turn out to be helpful even if you don't plan to
upload your package and make it available as part of the
distribution.)
______________________________________________________________________
A corresponding change should also be made to the policy
manual, and I shall propose that after this motion either stands or
falls.
manoj
--
Never speak ill of yourself, your friends will always say enough on
that subject. Charles-Maurice De Talleyrand
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Reply to: