Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 11 Apr 1998, James Troup wrote: > > > Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > I don't think this is a topic which belongs to the policy > > > manual. (For example, the policy manual doesn't include a statement > > > like `dereferencing NULL pointers is evil' either.) > > > > Policy includes plenty of examples of policies which potentially > > require changes to programs and are similar to this proposal, e.g > > 2.4.5, 3.3.6, 3.9, 4.5. How is this any different? (Esp. comapre > > with 2.4.5) > > There are some maintainers (including you) who always shout `this > should be documented in policy'.
That's not true and I object to you making such claims. > If we would document everything in policy, I would be too busy with > getting low-priority topics approved and included in the manual and > wouldn't have time anymore for the real important things (like the > FHS migration). How busy you are and whether or not this is a suitable topic for policy are orthogonal issues. Perhaps debian-policy needs multiple maintainers? > It would be intresting to do a quiz and ask a few arbitrarily > selected maintainers about some policy details. I'm sure most > maintainers don't know the details of Debian Policy, I think so too and I think this is a big problem. > since the manuals are already very large. I suspect is has more to do with people's unwillingness to RTFM. At least that's what I've seen on IRC and debian-mentors. > James, it looks like you just object to everything I say. You're wrong, and I'm sorry you can't see it any other way than that (just look at a mailing list archive, your claim is verifiably untrue). I object when I think you're wrong, nothing more, nothing less. > If not, then please let us not put too much times in these `silly' > discussions. You ask for opinions, then when I give mine, you flame me. Thanks, Christian. -- James -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
