Your message dated Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:53:46 -0600
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#183572: debian-policy: Documents are not useful from a
practical standpoint
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 5 Mar 2003 21:35:09 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Mar 05 15:35:08 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from fozzie.enc.com.au [150.101.196.29]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18qgXc-0000wj-00; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:35:08 -0600
Received: by fozzie.enc.com.au (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 810F15E032; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 08:34:37 +1100 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Craig Small" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Debian Bug Tracking System" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: debian-policy: Documents are not useful from a practical standpoint
X-Mailer: reportbug 2.3
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 08:34:37 +1100
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.2 required=4.0
tests=HAS_PACKAGE,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01
version=2.44
X-Spam-Level:
Package: debian-policy
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-03-06
Severity: normal
I'm not sure if this is a policy problem or a website problem or someone
else's problem.
As the dh-make maintainer, I often have to check that dh-make is doing
the right thing. This means that I try to follow policy and devel
reference as close as possible. It also means I probably read those
documents and need information from those documents more than the
average developer.
The documents consistently fail in answering my questions. Information
is either scattered all over the place, missing or difficult to find.
To use an example, what fields are in a debian/control file? What must
be there and what is optional and what do they all mean?
Maybe it's B3 of debian policy? Nope, that's out of date. C.2.2 has the
same problem. There is also confusion about the debian/control file
and tmp/package/DEBIAN/control file too, some fields are needed in one
but not the other.
Now maybe if you gather about 5 different sections and read a few others
for definitions, you will get the answer. But that's a lot of mucking
around for something that is supposed to be pretty fundamental.
To me a policy should be pretty clear on what is and is not required.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 2.2
Architecture: alpha
Kernel: Linux fozzie 2.4.20-xfs #2 Sun Feb 23 13:14:57 EST 2003 alpha
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 183572-done) by bugs.debian.org; 21 Mar 2003 17:01:24 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Mar 21 11:01:23 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from host-12-107-230-171.dtccom.net (glaurung.green-gryphon.com)
[12.107.230.171]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18wPtK-0004lc-00; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:01:15 -0600
Received: from glaurung.green-gryphon.com ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1])
by glaurung.green-gryphon.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-2) with ESMTP id
h2LGrlfW028002;
Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:53:47 -0600
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by glaurung.green-gryphon.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-2) id
h2LGrkJH027998;
Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:53:46 -0600
X-Authentication-Warning: glaurung.green-gryphon.com: srivasta set sender to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50.17 (via feedmail 8 I)
To: "Craig Small" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#183572: debian-policy: Documents are not useful from a
practical standpoint
From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: The Debian Project
X-URL: http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/
User-Agent: Gnus/5.090017 (Oort Gnus v0.17) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux)
(i686-pc-linux-gnu)
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-Time: Fri Mar 21 10:53:46 2003
X-Face: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/;Y^gTjR\T^"B'fbeuVGiyKrvbfKJl!^e|e:iu(kJ6c|QYB57LP*|t
&YlP~HF/=h:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:6Cj0kd#4]>*D,|0djf'CVlXkI,>aV4\}?d_KEqsN{Nnt7
78"OsbQ["56/!nisvyB/uA5Q.{)gm6?q.j71ww.>b9b]-sG8zNt%KkIa>xWg&1VcjZk[hBQ>]j~`Wq
Xl,y1a!(>6`UM{~'X[Y_,Bv+}=L\SS*mA8=s;!=O`ja|@PEzb&i0}Qp,`Z\:6:OmRi*
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:53:46 -0600
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ("Craig Small"'s
message of "Thu, 06 Mar 2003 08:34:37 +1100")
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=4.0
tests=IN_REP_TO,NOSPAM_INC,REFERENCES,SIGNATURE_SHORT_DENSE,
SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT,USER_AGENT_GNUS_UA,
X_AUTH_WARNING
version=2.44
X-Spam-Level:
Hi,
I don't think there is anything in this report that would
lead us to a solution. The report essentially says "policy is
disorganized, and it sucks". Quite. However, I am not sure the BTS
is the place to complain about lack of quality in the policy
document; a simple mail to the policy list, followed by concrete
suggestions would serve far better to reach a solution.
I am closing this report.
manoj
--
"The one charm of marriage is that it makes a life of deception a
neccessity." Oscar Wilde
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
