Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
> So, I think the questions before the TC are:
>
> 1. Should programs that make sense in the context of a typical DE (I
> realize there's some fuzziness around this) all have desktop files? If
> so, what level of Policy requirement should that be? (Please be more
> specific than "should" -- maybe talk in terms of expected bug
> severities? For reference, I consider man pages and doc-base
> integration to be a wishlist bug.)
>
> 2. What level of Policy requirement is providing traditional menu files in
> individual packages, using the same terminology?
Yes.
I think that all of these features (desktop files, trad menu entries,
manpages and doc-base bugs) should have the same status.
I would describe that status like this:
* A maintainer should not be criticised for uploading a package
without the feature.
* Contributions to provide the feature are encouraged.
* A maintainer should accept a patch which provides the feature
(unless there is something specifically wrong with the patch).
* In particular a maintainer should not decline such a patch on the
grounds that they think the feature is not important or does not
justify the effort of merging (and if necessary carring) the patch.
* lintian ought to report the lack of the feature as a warning
(supposed lintian can determine reasonably accurately whether the
feature is applicable to the package).
I'm not sure that bug severity is a particularly good way of encoding
this kind of information. Maintainers have different approaches to
bug severity and in general what a particular severity "means" (at
"normal" or below at least) is generally up to the maintainer.
Having said that I don't think "wishlist" is quite right for this. I
think "minor" is closer. I think that for a wishlist bug a maintainer
might reasonably decline a contributed patch on even fairly minimal
grounds.
Some maintainers leave some bugs open a long time as "wishlist
wontfix" rather than simply closing it - that provides a way, for
example, to provide information to people who newly come across the
issue.
> Things that I don't think are TC issues:
>
> * Whether desktop files should be documented in Policy at all. There
> appears to be consensus that they should be, and I don't think anyone is
> disagreeing with that consensus, so there is no dispute there.
Yes. I think the TC resolution should explicitly state, though, as a
matter of opinion, that the TC thinks it entirely reasonable that
desktop files should be documented in policy.
> * How Policy should formally represent the distinction between different
> levels of requirements. I respectfully suggest that this is a question
> of the maintenance and style of the Policy documentation, not a question
> of technical policy for the project, and is therefore a matter for the
> Policy Editors to decide, not the TC. What we're looking for from the
> TC is clear guidance on what the requirements are and what level of
> severity those requirements have. We clearly need to find some way to
> represent that in English once we have that guidance, but I don't think
> this is the place to decide how to do that or what the implications are
> for all the other "should" statements in Policy.
I'm very happy to leave that to the policy team. The TC resolution
should explicitly say that that's what we're doing.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
