[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

George Danchev <danchev@spnet.net> wrote:

> 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.

I disagree with your "I think..." statement.  And I also do not see that
anything needs to be written into the policy document, sub-policies can
just be handled as they are now:  They freely live out in the wild, and
only when they have been accepted as part of The Debian Policy by the
usual policy process do they get installed into

>> 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. 

For a document called "Debian-Foo-Policy" to be part of The Debian
Policy it must be included in 1.4.  If it is not included there, it is
not mandatory policy.  How is that unclear?  

Otherwise, nobody hinders me to write a document and call it "Debian TeX
Policy" (or "Debian Shakespeare Policy" or "Debian Lesbian Policy" ;-)) 
and install it with one of my packages.  It's clear that this doesn't
imply any normative value.

> 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 ? 

ls debian-policy-*sgml

It just means that they are in an external source file.

> Agreed. The question arose when the new ocaml-policy have been discussed.
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-ocaml-maint/2006/06/msg00080.html

In my opinion, you have to decide whether you want the Ocaml policy to
be part of the Debian Policy document, i.e. mentioned in 1.4.  If yes,
submit the Ocamls policy document, together with a patch for
policy.smgl's section 2.4, as a wishlist bug, following the procedure
documented in policy-process.sgml.  If no, install it into some basic
ocaml package and be done.

Regards, Frank

Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)

Reply to: