Re: [PROPOSED] Merging the packaging manual and policy packages
Robert Woodcock wrote:
> [Manoj - sorry about the extra message in your inbox. Forgot to send it to
> the list the first time around]
>
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > If we agree that the packaging manual has the weight of
> > Policy,
>
> Currently it does not. Someone needs to go over it with a fine-toothed comb
> to pick out non-policy issues, and transfer them to a third document,
> perhaps entitled "Packaging Hints" or something. Better yet, rename the
> whole document and then feed information gradually from policy and it to the
> new Packaging Manual.
Actually, I'd like to keep it named the Packaging Manual, and just start
moving sections over to the policy manual one at a time.
> This act by itself I do not have any problem with. I would not complain if
> the two documents were in the same package. However, pretending the
> Packaging Manual is policy is a bad idea. It was a reference guide
> previously.
I agree with both points.
> Tread carefully here - you entered into this conversation by rewriting
> history and are now severely underestimating the consequences of your
> actions.
Odd, I get this feeling too. Maybe I've just forgotten everything that
happened before xmas, but I don't remember history as Manoj is presenting
it.
> > Rationale:
> > a) There should only be one Standards-Version that Debian packages
> > use, and lintian checks for. Unless the pacdkaging manual and the
> > policy manual are merged into one package (note: *not* one
> > document), version skew is unavoidable.
>
> Version skew is a short-term problem. Standards-Version compliance is a
> long-term problem.
There's a simple solution to version skew: Make the Standards-Version refer
to the version of the policy manual, ignore the version of the packaging
manual.
--
see shy jo
Reply to: