Russ Allbery wrote: > Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I thought policy was documenting practice and not the other way around? > > Hm, no, that's not my perception of Policy. New Policy changes should > reflect practice in Debian first unless the problem is significant enough > that Policy needs to pick a side before one wins in practice, but once > something is in Policy, practice needs to conform with Policy and not the > other way around. Otherwise, what would be the point in having a Policy > document? > > Of course, if someone believes Policy is wrong, they can always propose to > change it. In this case, though, I think Policy's current position is > also the correct technical one to take.
Good luck with convincing the ones implementing it... Why should it be case insensitive? It's not case insensitive now and I do not see any technical reason to change that. It's not that package names, sections or anything else is case insensitive, is it? Like explained before, an urgency that is not existing (for instance one with capitals) is treated as low urgency at least in britney. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
