On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 08:44:22PM +0000, Vesa Paatero wrote: > On Sunday, December 6, 2015 7:43 PM, Marc Haber > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 08:27:56PM +0000, Vesa Paatero wrote: > > > > > Now, I am not expecting to get that policy changed just like that but > > > would it be a good idea to mandate some documentation, perhaps a > > > notification to the package description, for those packages that > > > expose such an interface to the world without user interaction?> > > > > How many of our _DEFAULTS_ do you expect us to document in all package > > descriptions affected by that _DEFAULT_? > > > I understand. But maybe documenting such "affecting defaults" could > make sense if they were expressed as flags of some sort so that they > wouldn't make the descriptions too long. For example, text "[SERVER]" > at the bottom of the description could indicate that package > establishes a server on your computer -- and then all those bracketed > flags in use would be explained on some web page.
Don't we already have a debtag to do so? Greetings Marc -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421
