On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 03:48:28AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > My suggestion for a
> > policy rewrite it to move to the standard RFC uses of MUST and SHOULD,
> > and indication RC-ness in an orthogonal way.
>
> In short, this isn't going to happen. There'll be a separate document,
> maintained by the release manager. It may or may not be included in
> debian-policy.deb. I'm inclined to think it'd be better if it were in
> that package, but we'll see.
There is, I have just realised, a middle way, which satisfies your
concerns and mine. There is an official list, maintained by you, and
for convenience, the information could be included in policy, with the
note that the official list can be found at <URL>. This would
parallel the situation with the build-essential package, which
provides a convenient way of knowing which packages are considered
build-essential, even though the official definition is that given by
policy.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
website: http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jdg/
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see: http://people.debian.org/~jdg/
Visit http://www.thehungersite.com/ to help feed the hungry
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
