[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 10:10, George Danchev wrote:
> 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.

Well, I am suggesting '1.4 Related documents' to read like:

There are several other documents other than this Policy Manual that are 
necessary to fully understand some Debian policies and procedures.

The external "sub-policy" documents are referred to in: 
	- <reference and package name in which to be found if any?>
	- ...

The sub-policy documents either can be part of this debian-policy document or 
referenced to by this paragraph. They are maintained by their authors and are 
all normative and authoritative.

In addition to those, which carry the weight of policy, there is the Debian 
Developer's Reference. This document describes procedures and resources for 
Debian developers, but it is not normative; rather, it includes things that 
don't belong in the Policy, such as best practices for developers.

The Developer's Reference is available in the developers-reference package. 
It's also available from the Debian web mirrors 
at /doc/developers-reference/. 

Now it is much more clear how to introduce and maintain a sub-policy, where it 
is to be found, who is responsible for it and how normative it is.

I'm fine if that does not accepted because I have been answered by the mailing 
list, but I will not be surprised if such anyone brings up similar questions 
in the future.

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: