On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 10:10:11AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Changes:
>
> * Add "prohibited" to the terms for requirements
> * Add another tier (Policy advice) using encouraged and discouraged
> * Stop confusing may and optional with wishlist bugs
> * Add terms for the collective set of Policy requirements at each tier
> * Explicitly state the long-standing policy that the release team determines
> release-critical bugs
wow, nice!
> diff --git a/policy/ch-scope.rst b/policy/ch-scope.rst
> index 2404e84..98983e9 100644
> --- a/policy/ch-scope.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-scope.rst
> @@ -31,21 +31,41 @@ part of Debian policy itself.
> The appendices to this manual are not necessarily normative, either.
> Please see :doc:`ap-pkg-scope` for more information.
>
> -In the normative part of this manual, the words *must*, *should* and
> -*may*, and the adjectives *required*, *recommended* and *optional*, are
> -used to distinguish the significance of the various guidelines in this
> -policy document. Packages that do not conform to the guidelines denoted
> -by *must* (or *required*) will generally not be considered acceptable
> -for the Debian distribution. Non-conformance with guidelines denoted by
> -*should* (or *recommended*) will generally be considered a bug, but will
> -not necessarily render a package unsuitable for distribution. Guidelines
> -denoted by *may* (or *optional*) are truly optional and adherence is
> -left to the maintainer's discretion.
> -
> -These classifications are roughly equivalent to the bug severities
> -*serious* (for *must* or *required* directive violations), *minor*,
> -*normal* or *important* (for *should* or *recommended* directive
> -violations) and *wishlist* (for *optional* items). [#]_
> +In the normative part of this manual, the following terms are used to
> +describe the importance of each statement: [#]_
> +
> +* The terms *must* and *must not*, and the adjectives *required* and
> + *prohibited*, denote strong requirements. Packages that do not conform
> + to these requirements will generally not be considered acceptable for
> + the Debian distribution. These statements correspond to the *critical*,
> + *grave*, and *serious* bug severities (normally serious). They are
> + collectively called *Policy requirements*.
> +
> +* The terms *should* and *should not*, and the adjective *recommended*,
> + denote best practices. Non-conformance with these guidelines will
> + generally be considered a bug, but will not necessarily render a package
> + unsuitable for distribution. These statements correspond to bug
> + severities of *important*, *normal*, and *minor*. They are collectively
> + called *Policy recommendations*.
> +
> +* The adjectives *encouraged* and *discouraged* denote places where Policy
> + offers advice to maintainers, but maintainers are free to follow or not
> + follow that advice. Non-conformance with this advice is normally not
> + considered a bug; if a bug seems worthwhile, normally it would have a
> + severity of *wishlist*. These statements are collectively calld *Policy
> + advice*.
> +
> +* The term *may* and the adjective *optional* are sometimes used to
> + clarify cases where it may otherwise appear that Policy is specifying a
> + requirement or recommendation. These words describe decisions that are
> + truly optional and at the maintainer's discretion.
> +
> +The Release Team may, at their discretion, downgrade a Policy requirement
> +to a Policy recommendation for a given release of the Debian distribution.
> +This may be done for only a specific package or for the archive as a
> +whole. This provision is intended to provide flexibility to balance the
> +quality standards of the distribution against the release schedule and the
> +importance of making a stable release.
seconded, thank you.
--
cheers,
Holger
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature