On Thursday 22 June 2006 19:21, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 06:21:35PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: > > 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. > > I agree the way you propose is _the_ proper way to go. > > However I, as an ocaml maintainer and policy author, do not have the > time/willingness to proceed that way, mainly because it is not my aim > right now. If Samuel (or someone else of course) is willing to take part > in the discussion that would be great. > > Otherwise --- or even in the meantime --- I would go for following what > other programming languages sub-policy did in the past (perl and python > mainly). That is: ask for inclusion in the debian-policy package. > > Note that I indeed do not see the urgency of our policy to be included > in debian-policy, but at the same time I don't see why we shouldn't.
ok, I filed #375502 in hope that sub-policy situation will be clarified by the debian-policy. I'm also subscribed in debian-policy mailing list. -- 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]
