On Tuesday 27 June 2006 01:43, Chris Waters wrote: > On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 06:05:17PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: > > What you tend to disagree with ? I'm asking for clarification how > > sub-policies must be handled, and this must be stipulated by the > > debian-policy. > > Why must it be stipulated by debian-policy?
I think it is vital to have sub-policy process options described in debian-policy 1.4. This is what I'm asking for. > Official policy is only required when A) there are several options, B) > they all work (this is important--if something doesn't work, it's a > bug, and doesn't need to be specified by policy), and C) we want to > enforce just one option for consistency's sake. No, I want any possible/sane/wise 'sub-policy' option to be mentioned in debian policy 1.4. > In this case, I think the proposal fails test C. I think the > advantages of flexibility outweigh the advantages of consistency > here. You can have your sub-policy included with d-policy or merely > referenced by it, at your choice. If it's included, it will be easier > to find, but harder to change. So this choice should be up to the > sub-policy maintainers, not a matter for policy. > > You can even have the sub-policy separate and NOT referenced by > d-policy, in which case, it will not have the weight of official > policy, but since consistency between packages is a Good Thing, it can > still be used as the basis for normal, minor or wishlist bugs. In > many cases, this may be sufficient. > > If you merely want to have ocaml-policy included in or referenced by > debian-policy, I will support whichever you choose. In fact I like that wording regarding the 'sub-policy' options, and hope it is fine enough to be mentioned in d-policy 1.4. > But if you're > asking for policy to be changed to force your choice, I will oppose > the proposal, unless you present better arguments than the mere > assertion, "it must be stipulated". Which brings us back to my > initial question. No forcing was intended in the first place. I was not even aware how many options one can have to intorduce a new 'sub-policy'. This is what I'm asking from d-policy 1.4. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
