[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

On Policy Compliance (was Re: static user IDs)



On Sep 18, Joseph Carter wrote:
> It's a problem if there's no transition to speak of.  We apparently have
> decided not to make policy that makes a bunch of packages instantly non-
> compliant without a reasonable transition.

I think we're starting to bastardize the concept of "policy
compliance" here.  All packages are compliant with policy if they meet
the requirements in the version of policy their Standards-Version
indicates.  A package that uses /usr/doc only does not comply with
*current* policy, but it does comply with a policy that is still
valid.  So, unless paired with a declaration of a "minimum policy"
that is acceptable (see your favorite Release Manager for this), no
change in policy can make a package non-compliant with policy.
Outdated perhaps, but not non-compliant.  AFAIK policies >= 2.4.0
(maybe even earlier) remain valid (lintian claims 2.5.0, but I believe
there was an Official Decision [tm] made for slink that has not been
revised and ergo remains in force).

Now, if the Release Manager were to say "No package using
/var/spool/mail directly will be in potato," then we could set a
minimum acceptable policy (at least for things that do stuff with
email) based on that comment, and then we would need a transition
strategy.


Chris
-- 
=============================================================================
|        Chris Lawrence        |       Get the skinny at DeltaPolitics      |
|   <quango@watervalley.net>   |        http://deltapolitics.dhs.org/       |
|                              |                                            |
|    Amiga A4000 604e/233Mhz   |   Visit the Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5:   |
|     with Linux/APUS 2.2.8    |   <*> http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/ <*>   |
=============================================================================

Attachment: pgpR9VgXuE7JU.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: