Robert Woodcock wrote: > [Manoj - sorry about the extra message in your inbox. Forgot to send it to > the list the first time around] > > Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > If we agree that the packaging manual has the weight of > > Policy, > > Currently it does not. Someone needs to go over it with a fine-toothed comb > to pick out non-policy issues, and transfer them to a third document, > perhaps entitled "Packaging Hints" or something. Better yet, rename the > whole document and then feed information gradually from policy and it to the > new Packaging Manual.
Actually, I'd like to keep it named the Packaging Manual, and just start moving sections over to the policy manual one at a time. > This act by itself I do not have any problem with. I would not complain if > the two documents were in the same package. However, pretending the > Packaging Manual is policy is a bad idea. It was a reference guide > previously. I agree with both points. > Tread carefully here - you entered into this conversation by rewriting > history and are now severely underestimating the consequences of your > actions. Odd, I get this feeling too. Maybe I've just forgotten everything that happened before xmas, but I don't remember history as Manoj is presenting it. > > Rationale: > > a) There should only be one Standards-Version that Debian packages > > use, and lintian checks for. Unless the pacdkaging manual and the > > policy manual are merged into one package (note: *not* one > > document), version skew is unavoidable. > > Version skew is a short-term problem. Standards-Version compliance is a > long-term problem. There's a simple solution to version skew: Make the Standards-Version refer to the version of the policy manual, ignore the version of the packaging manual. -- see shy jo
