On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 06:05:17PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: > What you tend to disagree with ? I'm asking for clarification how > sub-policies must be handled, and this must be stipulated by the > debian-policy.
Why must it be stipulated by debian-policy? Official policy is only required when A) there are several options, B) they all work (this is important--if something doesn't work, it's a bug, and doesn't need to be specified by policy), and C) we want to enforce just one option for consistency's sake. In this case, I think the proposal fails test C. I think the advantages of flexibility outweigh the advantages of consistency here. You can have your sub-policy included with d-policy or merely referenced by it, at your choice. If it's included, it will be easier to find, but harder to change. So this choice should be up to the sub-policy maintainers, not a matter for policy. You can even have the sub-policy separate and NOT referenced by d-policy, in which case, it will not have the weight of official policy, but since consistency between packages is a Good Thing, it can still be used as the basis for normal, minor or wishlist bugs. In many cases, this may be sufficient. If you merely want to have ocaml-policy included in or referenced by debian-policy, I will support whichever you choose. But if you're asking for policy to be changed to force your choice, I will oppose the proposal, unless you present better arguments than the mere assertion, "it must be stipulated". Which brings us back to my initial question. -- Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra- osis is too long [EMAIL PROTECTED] | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | volcaniconi- standalone haiku -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
