On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 07:44:27PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > However, I see there are two places in the policy manual which back up my > point. Both are in section 2.4.1: > > "When the standards change in a way that > requires every package to change the major number will be changed." > > So there was the assumption that policy can be chnaged in ways that requires > all packages to change. What you seem to propose is that we never bump the > major number again. > > The second was quoted by Anthony already: > > "This value will be used to file bug reports automatically if your > package becomes too much out of date." > > The critical part is "too much". These two words give us enough room to > *not* file bug reports right after releasing a new policy manual, even with > different major number. Hence I would not consider all packages to be > "buggy", just because they don't comply to the very latest standards > version. > > I believe that introducing major changes in the policy manual and having a > smooth transition is not a contradiction, even if all packages suddenly > don't comply to policy any longer.
I hope you don't mean that you think the current /usr/doc -> /usr/share/doc breakage is appropriate or necessary. For example, I see that first quote from the policy manual as being aimed at times when depreciated policy is pulled from use. I see nothing there which indicates that the policy manual should get a new major version number when new policy is introduced -- before any packages have had a chance to adapt. -- Raul
