Package: debian-policy Version: 4.6.2.1 Severity: normal Tags: patch X-Debbugs-Cc: j...@joshtriplett.org
This proposal adds a paragraph to Policy to explicitly state that having policy about *how* to use a particular technology or mechanism is not necessarily policy *requiring* the use of that technology or mechanism. Policy can explicitly state that packages must use a particular technology, but having policies *about* that technology does not imply such a mandate. For example, having policy about how to install info files does not mean that packages must provide info files. Having policy about how to ship cron jobs does not mean that packages must ship cron jobs. (This is already the standard interpretation, and thus this does not *change* policy, but rather it clarifies that and avoids misinterpretation.) Stating this up front can help packagers understand that not all parts of Policy will apply to them, and that they're not required to use a particular technology *unless* Policy specifically says that. I've provided a patch implementing this, but I'm happy to modify the wording as desired, and will make updates as requested. This patch is also available on Salsa at: https://salsa.debian.org/josh/policy/-/tree/no-implicit-requirements diff --git a/policy/ch-scope.rst b/policy/ch-scope.rst index a279c26..047cdf8 100644 --- a/policy/ch-scope.rst +++ b/policy/ch-scope.rst @@ -25,6 +25,12 @@ Debian policy does not mean that it is not a bug, let alone that it is desirable. Questions not covered by policy should be evaluated on their merits. {+This manual often specifies that if a package wants to use a particular+} {+technology or mechanism, it must/should meet specific requirements when+} {+doing so. The inclusion of such requirements in this manual does not+} {+require the use of that particular technology or mechanism, unless this+} {+manual explicitly includes a requirement to that effect.+} The footnotes present in this manual are merely informative, and are not part of Debian policy itself.
