On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 10:56:18AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bill Allombert <bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr> writes: > > > 1) As written, the policy change induce maintainers to make changes to > > their packages that will cause them to have a bug. This is not > > acceptable. > > > 2) As discussed previously, there are ways to tweak the process to avoid > > this bug while keeping the advantage of this change, and so it should be > > done. > > I'm happy to add a statement that packages should depend on > dpkg (>= 1.15.4) | install-info if they contain info documents. I think > that's a reasonable thing to do as part of the transition. Would that > address these two concerns?
Yes, I would second the proposal with such an amendment. > > 4) While I have no technical objection to the 'START-INFO-DIR-ENTRY' / > > 'END-INFO-DIR-ENTRY' bits, currently at least one program generating > > info files (debiandoc2info) does not follow them. Packages using it to > > generate their info files would have a bug under this policy without an > > easy way to fix it, so maybe it is a bit premature. Reading the comment I will assume that debiandoc2info is the only package that need to be fixed and waive this part. I will also try to get debiandoc2info fixed. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
