>>>>> "Didier" == Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <o...@debian.org> writes:
Didier> Le mardi, 13 octobre 2015, 08.55:07 Wouter Verhelst a écrit
Didier> :
>> But _forbidding_ maintainers who want to from shipping a second
>> file, if that somehow makes the experience of menu users better
>> than what the fdo menu would have given them? Sorry, but that
>> seems petty and silly.
Didier> For context, the exact phrasing of the TC decision is
Didier> "packages providing a .desktop file shall not also provide a
Didier> menu file for the same application."
Didier> This translates to "this situation constitutes a bug", but
Didier> doesn't specify an explicit patch for the Debian Policy (aka
Didier> doesn't explicitly lay down the severity of the bug). I'd
Didier> argue that in the absence of a new Debian Policy version
Didier> incorporating the TC decision, such situations would be
Didier> 'serious' bugs. Can we work towards ironing an adequate
Didier> wording?
No, i don't think so at all.
It's quite clear from the TC minutes that serious was not intended, and
there's no evidence that shall from the TC means the same
thing as must in the policy.
When I read the message I feel a great frustration because I'm hoping
that we can work with respect. It sounds like you are trying to build
up an interpretation that was never intended and create a bad
consequence for the status quo to drive resolution.
I do not support that. I fully realize that it's easy to assume
motivations different than intended.
