Bug#102213: [PROPOSAL] Policy interpretation and exceptions
I think we should emphasise compliance with the spirit of policy, in the
cases where that might conflict with the letter. I think there's general
agreement about this, but I'm not really sure.
So, for your perusal, here's a possible addition to policy's scope section:
--- policy.sgml Fri Jun 1 19:40:16 2001
+++ policy.sgml.discretion Mon Jun 25 22:47:48 2001
@@ -157,6 +157,21 @@
merely informative, and are not part of Debian policy itself.
+ The guidelines in this manual are expected to be interpreted
+ intelligently, with a view to improving the technical quality
+ of the Debian distribution. Where a guideline in this manual
+ does not make sense for a particular package, or describes
+ an inadequate solution, the maintainer should discuss the
+ issue with other developers via the <tt>debian-devel</tt>
+ or <tt>debian-policy</tt> mailing lists, with a view to
+ finding a better solution, or correcting a flaw in policy.
+ In rare cases a package may be enough of a special case that
+ it should not follow a guideline and the exception would just
+ be confusing if listed in this manual itself. In those cases,
+ a comment to this effect should generally be included in the
+ package's <tt>README.Debian</tt> file.
In this manual, the words <em>must</em>, <em>should</em> and
Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
-- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)