Bug#31645: PROPOSED] Explicitly making the Packaging Manual a Policy Document

[Joey Hess <joey@kitenet.net>]

Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 	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
    Project's
> + 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.

I have reservations about this proposal on two grounds.

1) The packaging manual was not written as a policy document, it is
   technical documentation. I advise everyone to read all of the packaging
   manual as if it were a policy document to make sure there's nothing in
   there that won't come back to haunt us later once it becomes policy.

Some examples of things that bother me:

     The Debian `debmake' package is recommended as a very helpful tool in
     creating and maintaining Debian packages.

Does this mean that policy would encourage use of debstd? (Not that it's in
debmake anymore, but it was when the above was written.) I thought Manoj
didn't even like debmake as it is now, so I'm suprised to see him propose
that policy reccommend its use.

     For example, the `procps' package generates two kinds of binaries,
     simple C binaries like `ps' which require a predependency and
     full-screen ncurses binaries like top' which require only a
     recommendation.

If this became policy, it would mean that procps explicitly violates policy
with "Depends: libc6, libc6 (>= 2.0.7u), libncurses4".

     It must start with the line #!/usr/bin/make -f', so that it can be
     invoked by saying its name rather than invoking make' explicitly.

While this (as I read it) intends to require that you can say "debian/rules
binary", rather than "make -f debian/rules binary", people are already
misinterpreting it to mean that the rules file must be a makefile. I do not
want such a vaguely worded, easily misinterpreted statement to become part
of policy. 

This is only a sampling, I don't have time to re-read all of the packaging
manual right now.

2) There is value in separating technical documentation, which can change
   when the programs it documents change, from policy, which can only change
   after debate on this list.

-- 
see shy jo