Charles Plessy wrote: > If you think that it is necessary to obtain the agreement of the d-i team to > mention the udebs in #697433, please go ahead, but on my side, I do not think > that there is a problem here.
I guess I'm completely failing to communicate. udebs are already documented very clearly. There is _no point_ in policy replicating that. Policy is meant to help multiple people cooperate to make the Debian system work in a consistent way --- adding some docs about udebs would not help that at all. All I said is that the text in #697433 seems to (unintentionally, I hope) imply that packages with "Package-type: udeb" are an example of the packages that policy defines. I suggested a way to fix that --- just link to the d-i docs. I see no downside to that. Yet I'm getting a lot of resistance to the suggestion. Why? What am I missing? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org