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 Outdated perhaps, but not non-compliant.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:
pgpcauv_PDk3x.pgp
Description: PGP signature