Re: Bug#375502: debian-policy must clarify how sub-policies should be managed
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 06:05:17PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> What you tend to disagree with ? I'm asking for clarification how
> sub-policies must be handled, and this must be stipulated by the
Why must it be stipulated by debian-policy?
Official policy is only required when A) there are several options, B)
they all work (this is important--if something doesn't work, it's a
bug, and doesn't need to be specified by policy), and C) we want to
enforce just one option for consistency's sake.
In this case, I think the proposal fails test C. I think the
advantages of flexibility outweigh the advantages of consistency
here. You can have your sub-policy included with d-policy or merely
referenced by it, at your choice. If it's included, it will be easier
to find, but harder to change. So this choice should be up to the
sub-policy maintainers, not a matter for policy.
You can even have the sub-policy separate and NOT referenced by
d-policy, in which case, it will not have the weight of official
policy, but since consistency between packages is a Good Thing, it can
still be used as the basis for normal, minor or wishlist bugs. In
many cases, this may be sufficient.
If you merely want to have ocaml-policy included in or referenced by
debian-policy, I will support whichever you choose. But if you're
asking for policy to be changed to force your choice, I will oppose
the proposal, unless you present better arguments than the mere
assertion, "it must be stipulated". Which brings us back to my
Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra- osis is too long
email@example.com | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single
or firstname.lastname@example.org | volcaniconi- standalone haiku