package debian-policy
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
usertag 525843 = normative discussion
thanks
Hi,
Looking at the bug report, I can agree that there is a rough
consensusabout using a "standard" text-based markup language to
interpret package long descriptions. What is unclear, though, which of
the two equivalent languages (Markdown or ReStructured Text) are being
proposed here -- either one of these would be acceptable, and there are
working implementations of either that seem to do a very creditable job.
We need to pick one or the other (and at this point, I am
agnostic to whatever is picked, since either is a standard that is
popular and is not a NIH spec) -- and I do not see anything claer about
which one policy should support.
We could, as an example, go by pop-con results for the
interpreters -- that is one defensible means of selecting the language,
I guess.
manoj
ps: people on the mailing list who are not conversant with this bug are
encouraged to follow the links in the initial bug report and the
followup before making their minds on this
--
Random, n.: As in number, predictable. As in memory access,
unpredictable.
Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
