On Mon, Mar 16 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> In a sense, while uscan offers an implementation, the policy offer its
> API. The two are complementary and I don't see why I should loose one
> because of the other.
>
> Also, having an API, offers exactly encapsulation, in the sense that
> you can use uscan to implement it, but you are not forced to. What is
> the problem with that? It is like *the* point I'm missing in this
> whole discussion.
I am opposed to bloating the policy with dictum that are
unnecessary, but I see your point about the API. The API is essentially
the watch file, and we already specify that in the policy. DEHS (as
mentioned in policy) uses that file;p there is no need to add stuff
into policy that we already have.
manoj
--
You get what you pay for. Gabriel Biel
Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
