On Thu, Apr 23 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Considering all this thread, can you please summarize the point of
> view of policy maintainers on the issue? (which is why I added back
> the -policy Cc: in the first place)
While I can't speak for the policy team (I have not been
re-delegated yet), I suspect the answer might be to get a working
implementation out in the wild (it does not have to be packages.d.o or
anything official -- even a standalone software that takes the output
from grep-dctrl or parses a Packages file will suffice). This will
allow us to see what changes to policy might be needed, if any, for
package descriptions.
Once we ahve a working implementation, and a clear idea of what
might need to be changed in package descriptions (for example, we
already know that packages using 'o' as a bullet in unordered lists
will have to be changed to use one of +.-. or *), we can scan the
package descriptions to see how many packages would be affected, and
then decide how to introduce that language into policy (more package
affected, the more the need for a transition plan)
I do not see any reason this proposal should not become policy,
eventually, since this deals with the core charter of the technical
policy: standards that packages need to follow to allow for better
integration.
manoj
--
Diplomacy is the art of letting the other party have things your
way. Daniele Vare
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
