Bug#686143: debian-policy: FHS requirements on "essential" binaries cannot be well defined at distro level
Zachary Harris <zacharyharris@hotmail.com> writes:
> OK, I'm tracking with you now. I'm sorry for my own misunderstanding.
> I was getting the impression that my request to document the
> "non-compliant status quo" was going to be relegated to a "wish" that
> would most likely be utterly ignored, and that didn't seem right. Having
> open issues, but with clear documentation, is the name of the game.
Ah, no. It's just that anything that represents a change in the existing
documented practice uses a wishlist severity for Policy since the higher
severity are reserved for places where what Policy says is contradictory,
deceptive, or simply wrong. That's not the case here; the clarification
that you're proposing is effectively a weakening of something that Policy
(sort of implicitly) tells one to do right now.
Anyway, order of processing of bugs only very vaguely follows severity
levels.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: