On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 12:26:16PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > http://people.debian.org/~rmurray/c++transition.html
> > Ps: you might want to consider retiring the libc6 transition document.
> I'd rather if we dropped all such transitional issues from the Policy
> manual. They're just bother and don't really have to be here to be mandated
> by the project (examples abound -- libc6-migration, fhs migration, C++ 3
> transition...). The technical committee can make a statement and be done
> with it.
I'd rather we stopped looking at policy as "mandating things". There
are three things policy's trying to do at the moment:
1) specify technical standards, like version formats and package
names
2) specify packaging and coding best practices
3) specify release requirements
All these things are necessary if we want to maintain Debian as a
highly integrated system -- people don't come to the project with the
same expectations and experience, and we don't want to inflict the same
mistakes on our users in perpetuity as new developers come along.
http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt is a good start at
separating out (3), and I'm happy for the release team to continue
maintaining that, even though it obviously is a little redundant wrt
policy.
(1) is easy to separate out -- there's only a couple of sections that
specify APIs and formats rather than implications, mostly from the old
packaging manual.
That leaves (2) though, which really includes things like transition
documents, and subproject policies, and most of the current debian-policy
document.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Is this some kind of psych test?
Am I getting paid for this?''
Attachment:
pgp740CkhLjY8.pgp
Description: PGP signature