Bug#31645: PROPOSED] Explicitly making the Packaging Manual a Policy Document
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Too late. The packaging manual is already policy. We already
> have been thorugh this. The only forum that can decide what
> constitutes Debian policy is the Technical committee, and the policy
> mailing list. The policy mailing list came to the conclusion in
> september that the Packaging manual was part of core policy, and the
> developers reference was not.
>
> This mailing list agreed that the packagingn manual
> has the weight of policy, and that was announced on debian-devel as
> well, and accepted by a vote in this forum. I am willing to quote
> Chapter and verse:
>
> http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9809/msg00072.html
> http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9809/msg00074.html
> http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9809/msg00076.html
> http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9809/msg00077.html
> http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9809/msg00083.html
> http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9809/msg00084.html
> http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9809/msg00086.html
> http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9809/msg00088.html
> http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9809/msg00089.html
> http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9809/msg00090.html
I read all these. Most were sidetracked into the question of the Developer's
Reference. The only one I could find that mentioned the Packaging manual was
the last one, which did say,
| On the other hand, the Packaging manual seems an excellent addition to
| the Policy Group's duties, assuming they are up to the task.
Which I have no problem with, but does not imply that it become policy just
because the same group maintains it.
If this change has already happened, it slipped in with most of the
developers unaware of it, and without them considering the implications of
the change, and I will try to get it changed back.
> As it is already policy, I would like to screen out all the
> things that should be thrown right back out.
Unfortunatly, that's on the order of 50% of the document.
Do you really believe that the mechanics of how update-alternatives and
dpkg-divert work is policy? Or the details of exactly how dpkg calls the
maintainer scripts? Or exactly which arguments dpkg-buildpackage takes? Or
the details of converting an old source format package? It's all in there..
> I think the packaging manual can do with some major changes ;-)
I agree.
> Joey> This is only a sampling, I don't have time to re-read all of the packaging
> Joey> manual right now.
>
> Joey> 2) There is value in separating technical documentation, which can change
> Joey> when the programs it documents change, from policy, which
> Joey> can only change after debate on this list.
This second point holds more weight in my mind than the first I made. Don't
you have any comments on it?
--
see shy jo
Reply to: