[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 Tuesday 27 June 2006 01:43, Chris Waters wrote:
> 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
> > debian-policy.
> Why must it be stipulated by debian-policy?

I think it is vital to have sub-policy process options described in 
debian-policy 1.4. This is what I'm asking for.

> 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.

No, I want any possible/sane/wise 'sub-policy' option to be mentioned in 
debian policy 1.4.

> 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.  

In fact I like that wording regarding the 'sub-policy' options, and hope it is 
fine enough to be mentioned in d-policy 1.4.

> 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
> initial question.

No forcing was intended in the first place. I was not even aware how many 
options one can have to intorduce a new 'sub-policy'. This is what I'm asking 
from d-policy 1.4.

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: