On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:33:17 +0100, Giacomo A Catenazzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:10:33 +0000, Ian Jackson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>>> Manoj Srivastava writes ("[Policy-rewrite]: Determining distinct
>>> policy rules"):
>>>> While we are all pondering the new policy draft format, the next
>>>> step to be taken are looking at current policy, and determining
>>>> what are the distinct rules; and what are the normative parts in
>>>> that rule.
>>
>>> I know you're pretty set on this new approach but I just wanted to
>>> say that I think it's a bad idea.
>>
>> Separating out normative parts from the rationale of a rule is a bad
>> idea?
> Separating no, but IMHO they should be together (near in the master
> file), so that they remain consistent.
This leads me to believe you have not read the proposal, and are
coming into this discussion in the middle (if you had read the
proposal, this is not a concern that you could have voiced).
Since it is going to be far less noise in the channel i you read
the proposal, and come back with concerns that are relevant to the
proposal,
> This point is not so clear to me. Do "machine-readable" mean to be
> used directly by "lintian"-like tools?
Again, if you read the proposal, you would know what was being
proposed. Please go back, read the proposal, and then come back to the
list with your concerns.
manoj
--
Perfect day for scrubbing the floor and other exciting things.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
