Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> In any case, policy is not meant to be followed anyway.
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Raul> Cut it out, Manoj. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why? You should be happy I'm on your side now. Were you not objecting > to the statement that policy has to be followed? Well, either policy > has to be followed, or not. Please make up your mind on the issue. Policy SHOULD be followed, in the general case. I'd even agree that in a large number of specific cases (but not all), policy MUST be followed. You're the one that has decided that this means that it SHOULD NOT be followed. I've mostly agreed with (Buddha and Philip's) statement you quoted a few days ago which talks about what to do when policy doesn't apply properly. I think it has a weakness: in creating the rules for how "debian-policy" is or isn't followed, no policy has been formed about when to go beyond "debian-policy". As you've probably gathered, I'm a little uncomfortable with a blanket statement which claims to convert policy to some rules that always applies to all cases. But if we can come up with a good statement for how we can recognize when the rules don't take us where we want, I can live with that. And, to be honest, a lot of the policy manual is prescriptive rather than descriptive. > who thinks that with the exit of the policy editor, policy may well > be dead. Christian did a lot of good work, and probably will continue to do so (though, for whatever reason, he's stated that he doesn't think he can do it in this forum). Other people can do good work, too. [Aside: I wrote him and asked for clarification on what he meant, and he didn't respond. I presume this means he's pretty busy.] -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
