Le Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 11:34:51PM +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit : > > It is the demotion of the traditional menu from "should" to "can" > which is controversial. For the reasons I have already explained, I > do not agree with that.
Hi Ian, yes, it is that part that is controversial, and I would appreciate if the TC would focus on it, since this was the original topic of #707851, entitled “soften the wording recommending menu files”. The underlying question is: who should spend the time writing these files and keeping them up to date ? In the case of missing manual pages, the policy (§ 12.1) does not require the package maintainer to write one. As a general principle, I think that this is the right way. Pacakge maintainers are volunteers, and we should be careful to avoid loading them with extra work. Therefore, I think that the “should” of §9.6, paragraph 2 should be relaxed. Needless to say, patches carrying Debian menu entries should be accepted. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
