Thanks for replying -- you had several informative points. [And thanks for your work on the wine packages.] I just need to correct the following:
On Tuesday, April 24, 2012 14:01:10, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Chris Knadle wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2012 03:19:11, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
...
> >> I do think Lucas is right - you are taking a rather large leap of
> >> interpretation: from very specific ("no cosmetic changes or switching
> >> packaging style") to rather generic ("nothing other than critical
> >> bugs"). There's a host of issues in between, they are not excluded in
> >> the text but they are excluded in what you say the text 'implies'. I
> >> would indeed suggest, like Lucas, not to try too hard to find
> >> 'implications' or 'between the lines' text, which isn't actually there.
> >
> > As I mentioned in the my most recent reply, the overall tone of the
> > section overall is why interpret the wording of the section that way.
>
> So, like I said, the NMU section can certainly be improved. The best
> way to do that is to start a new bug report with a diff of the wording
> that you think should change. Debian values work, rather than
> discussion, so please put in the work.
I already proposed to write a bug report against the developers-refernece
package in the email prior to the one you're replying to. [1]
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2012/04/msg00046.html
-- Chris
--
Chris Knadle
[email protected]
GPG Key: 4096R/0x1E759A726A9FDD74
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
