Bug#169399: handling of additional documentation with doc-base
>>"Josip" == Josip Rodin <joy@gkvk.hr> writes:
>>
>> That change makes over 90% of the packages on my machine
>> instantly buggy, for not following a should directive.
Josip> No, it wouldn't. This part of policy wouldn't apply to
Josip> packages that have nothing to do with it.
Josip> Packages that would deserve a bug are those that which have
Josip> additional docs but have registered it only with dhelp or such
Josip> (ew!) or that have it but haven't registered it.
Can we have some guestimate on the numbers here?
Josip> The "policy is not a beating stick" argument doesn't apply to
Josip> changes that document best current practice, and expose
Josip> already existing bugs (lack of docs integration in this case
Josip> -- I'm sure we can all agree that the state of our
Josip> documentation overall is far from optimal and that it cannot
Josip> be ignored as "wishlist" forever).
Well, if policy is not going to be used as a stick, then it
should not matter if we phase it in, starting with recommending it,
and then making the directive stronger as we get a handle on how many
packages are affected.
In general, I would be very wary of something that goes from
not being mentioned in policy to being a should or a must, unless we
have some numbers that show that it shall not make a significant
fraction of current packages instantly buggy, no matter how noble the
end goal is.
manoj
--
Don't speak about Time, until you have spoken to him.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: