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

Re: Bug#375502: debian-policy must clarify how sub-policies should be managed

On Monday 26 June 2006 17:37, Frank Küster wrote:
> George Danchev <danchev@spnet.net> wrote:
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Version:
> > Severity: wishlist
> >
> > The current paragraphs of #1.4, #11.9, #11.9 show perl-policy as
> > a part debian-policy package and emacs-policy as a separate package.
> > I think that all sub-policies should obey same rules, e.g. each of them
> > to be managed in a separate package or within the debian-policy package.
> I tend to disagree.  A sub-policy should only be part of the

What you tend to disagree with ? I'm asking for clarification how sub-policies 
must be handled, and this must be stipulated by the debian-policy.

> debian-policy package, and installed in /usr/share/doc/debian-policy, if
> it is accepted and has been established through the official policy
> process.  

I agree that if sub-policies are meant to be part of debian-policy then 
official policy-process should be followed. But which paragraph of the 
current debian-policy says that final sub-policies must be part of the 
debian-policy. Note that I'm not against that, I just want to see that 
clarified by the debian-policy itself. Also note that the current 
debian-policy #1.4 mention them as: 'The external "sub-policy" documents'. 
What does 'external' mean ? 

> On the other hand, sub-policies do not appear from nowhere and 
> suddenly start being official. Instead, maintainer groups that deal 
> with the sub-topic usually start developping their policy along existing
> implementations, and adapt their implementations as their policy gets
> more and more consistent (and tested).  At some point, they can apply to
> become part of "the policy", with all the side effects like must-clauses
> being RC etc.  But that's only the end, and the sub-policy document must
> exist prior to this, at some other place.

Agreed. The question arose when the new ocaml-policy have been discussed.

pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB 

Reply to: