Re: Bug#447231: debian-policy: New Python policy missing
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 10:46:53 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz <email@example.com> said:
> the new Python policy is in use since several months now and should be
Are these the policies that are currently in use?
This seems more like a HOWTO document, and relies heavily on
using debhelper. The language is not what I would expect of a normative
document; it is fine for what it appears to be, a user guide.
In general, the policy should define interfaces and
requirements, and leave implementation details to the user; which is
not the case here.
This document is slightly better, but there is no indication
that this has been accepted by the Debian Python crowd. Has there been
a ratification of this document by folks who use python?
> are both much more uptodate than
Umm, I am not sure where that document comes from, but it
certainly does not seem to be part of the Debian technical policy, so I
am not sure what the relevance is here.
Perhaps the Python Debian community should come to a consensus,
update the page on http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/, and
then move to have whatever the result is be added to the
"Never make any mistaeks." (Anonymous, in a mail discussion about to a
kernel bug report.)
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C