Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes: > Maybe that would be best. The concern that I had is that it wouldn't > be clear that a package just being maintained upstream isn't > sufficient; someone needs to be responsible for the package as it > exists in Debian.
Part of my difficulty here is the lack of a succint term to refer to “package for which Debian policy is intended to be normative”. You've fallen into the same trap I did earlier: you referred to “the package as it exists in Debian”, whereas as Charles pointed out, Debian policy is meant to apply also to packages that *don't* exist in Debian. -- \ “If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will | `\ not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog | _o__) and a man.” —Mark Twain, _Pudd'n'head Wilson_ | Ben Finney <b...@benfinney.id.au> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/871vbifryt....@benfinney.id.au
