Bug#375502: debian-policy must clarify how sub-policies should be managed
George Danchev writes ("Bug#375502: debian-policy must clarify how sub-policies should be managed"):
> 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 disagree. The purpose of having the files in one package or another
is to make the maintenance as easy as possible. If it's maintained by
Manoj it's probably easiest to put it in debian-policy. If it's
maintained by (say) the Emacs maintainers then putting it in an Emacs
policy is fine.
Of course it is be helpful for the manual in the debian-policy package
to have appropriate cross-references to the other policy documents.
Frank Küster writes ("Re: Bug#375502: debian-policy must clarify how sub-policies should be managed"):
> I tend to disagree. A sub-policy should only be part of the
> debian-policy package, and installed in /usr/share/doc/debian-policy, if
> it is accepted and has been established through the official policy
There is no `official policy process'. Manoj has (very wisely IMO)
abolished the previous bureaucracy and returned to editing the manual
according to his own judgement - taking into account of course the
advice and information of others including probably the rough
consensus of this mailing list.
So there is no difference in the authoritativeness of the policy in
debian-policy versus that in any other package. These policies are
all authoritative (and are all subject to the TC's power to overrule
the maintainer without a supermajority).