Hi Mathias, On 23-07-17 18:25, Mathias Behrle wrote: > As the bug title says, those recommendations are best practices and for me there > is no need to put them into policy. There is lots of best practices in policy. It is written as "xyz *should* abc". > There can always be good reasons to not use > dbconfig-common at all (it just can't be as flexible as required to meet all the > different scenarios) and therefore it won't be desirable to put any pressure on > maintainers of database applications to use it. Please correct me if I am wrong but the best practices don't request you to use dbconfig-common (although that would be a future step). It rather tries to describe what every package should do. (And yes, it does mention that a package COULD use dbconfig-common to do it). Also, regarding your comment on flexibility of dbconfig-common, could you please provide a good example where dbconfig-common is too rigid, and a package is doing it better itself? I think there is so much that can go wrong in doing database manipulation, that I think it is in the interest of Debian quality to put it all in one place. I think dbconfig-common is that place. But, this bug is not about dbconfig-common, so please contact me about this on dbconfig-common-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org or in a bug against dbconfig-common. > Nevertheless a good > best paractices section like [1] with hints to various examples is highly > appreciated and will be sufficient. Linked in policy? Or just at the documentation site as it is now? I am afraid that people may not find it easily there. Paul
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature