On Thursday 22 June 2006 15:58, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 12:02:51PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: > > Right, it is, except that debian-policy is under tight control when it > > comes to upgrades and probably it will be a pain to upgrade sub-policies > > distributed with the debian-policy package. > > Fair enough, but history tells us that we don't need to update the > debian policy very often. We survived with a really out of date policy > for months and noone complained. Now we have a valuable document, but I > doubt we will need to change it very often. Perhaps just rebuilding it > from time to time would be good -- so that the version will get updated > --, but if we manage to automate that in the rebuilding process of the > debian-policy package I think we will be more than fine. > > > Better yet create a separate package which depends on debian-policy > > and polulates /usr/share/doc/debian-policy wich the ocaml-polcy files. > > That would be a problem IMO. Stuff in debian-policy is, in my idea, > considered *the* official packaging guide(s) of Debian. Having OCaml > policy there would be a plus for us. > > Otherwise we can keep it in the ocaml package, I don't see the need to > fork a ocaml policy package.
You have your points. I'd suggest to discuss 'where sub-policies belong to' in debian-policy mailing list or we can file a bug against debian-policy to clarify that issue, since the current paragraphs of #1.4, #11.9, #11.9 show perl-policy as part debian-policy package and emacs-policy as a separate package. I think that all sub-policies should obey same rules. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
