[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#587279: debian-policy: section 2.2.1 needs some tweaking



Michael Gilbert <michael.s.gilbert@gmail.com> writes:

> Opinions are malleable (wrong and right are all a matter of
> perspective).  This is something sufficiently nuanced that I think its
> worth sufficient pondering to really get it right.  If you haven't spent
> much time pondering those nuances, it's easy to assume perspective of
> the status quo.

But I have spent much time pondering these nuances and have decided that
while your opinion makes sense and comes from a set of reasonable
assumptions, I don't agree with it.

When I said I wasn't interested in reopening this discussion, I really
meant it.  My perception is that the project made a decision on this case
(one that I happen to think is right) and there's no great clamour to
reopen the topic.  You don't agree with that decision, which is perfectly
reasonable.  I think you're in the "rough" of "rough consensus."

If such a clamour arises, then of course that's a different situation.

Anyway, I think this is irrelevant to the wording debate, since the core
of that argument is over what it means to "depend on or recommend" or to
"require" other software, and that's not something we're going to resolve
by tweaking the wording.

> Right, I wasn't trying to say that.  My point was more that the lead-in
> paragraph as it is now is only descriptive, but given the wording
> doesn't actually lay out any of particular requirements (more so it lays
> out the ideals of main).  The requirements themselves actually start
> with, "Every package in main must comply...." then continues with "In
> addition to" and then the bullets.

Yes, this is the point where we don't agree.  You feel that because there
isn't a "must" in the first paragraph, it's not a requirement.  I think
the first paragraph is clearly a requirement, whether it includes the word
"must" or not.  It's typical in standards that statements of fact like
"nothing in main requires software outside of main to function" constitute
a requirement placed on software going in main, regardless of whether it
uses a specific standards word.  In other words, you aren't allowed to do
something that makes factual statements in the policy document false.

(This comes up frequently in descriptions of syntax.  It's usually both
tedious and pointless to add "must" words everywhere to say that people
aren't allowed to violate the syntax.)

If it would result in less argument, I can support rephrasing the first
paragraph to include the magic word "must" around "does not require
software outside of main to function."

> It's not unclear per se, but there remain ambiguities in terminology
> making it possible to interpret it in various slightly incompatible
> fashions: the choice of the term "package" vs. "software" makes it
> appear ok to have non-main "software" depends/recommends but not ok to
> have "package" depends/recommends.

The reason why I'm somewhat unenthused about tweaking the wording here is
that there are *always* going to be ways to interpret human language other
ways, particularly in an area like this that's rife with acknowledged grey
areas (like emulators that are mostly used to play non-free ROMs but can
also play the -- often nearly nonexistent -- free ROMs).  In other words,
I'm skeptical whether changing the language here is going to result in
fewer discussions like this, and whether it's going to actually resolve
confusion, as opposed to being a debating stick.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>



Reply to: