> I haven't read the document in question in a rather long time, so I > can't actually object (on some sort of serious basis, I mean), but I > would nevertheless request that the document be handed to the -english > mailing list for proofreading *before* it's uploaded as a package and > that a big "THIS IS A *GUIDE*" banner be stamped on it. The last thing > I want is people complaining that libfoo doesn't follow some chapter > and verse of said guide under the impression that it is somehow > "correct", "standard" or "mandatory".
I think this proofreading has happened some time ago; but will definitely benefit from being proof-read again. This document has been around for more than 2 years now. As for your objection of "correct", "standard" or "mandatory", I would say that this document is a recommendation, and should be followed when there is not a good argument against it. If there is a good reason not to follow this document, in which case I would recommend providing a patch against the libpkg-guide. After all, what this document tried to be is to document current practice, backed with some bugreports resulting from mis-packaging; and tried to document a guideline on which there was no real guideline. regards, junichi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]