[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

Frank Küster writes ("Re: Bug#375502: debian-policy must clarify how sub-policies should be managed"):
> 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?  

The list in 1.4 isn't necessarily complete.

> 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.

If you write the Debian TeX policy then it's just as normative as the
debian-policy manual.  If it's full of nonsense and you refuse to
remove it then someone will complain to the Technical Committee and
the TC will instruct you to remove it from the package.

Note that the key point here is that the debian-policy manual might be
has been known to be at variance with reality too and when we discover
that the policy and the reality disagree we decide (here on this list,
usually) whether the policy or the reality should be changed.

Note the following principle: a document is normative if and only if
the official decisionmaking processes apply to it.

> > 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.

For starters, the OCAML policy should be put in some package.  But you
should also file a bug asking for 1.4 to be changed to include it in
the list.


Reply to: