Your message dated Sat, 07 Feb 2026 11:54:07 -0800
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#1067079: Clarify that policy on a technology does not
implicitly mandate that technology
has caused the Debian Bug report #1067079,
regarding Clarify that policy on a technology does not implicitly mandate that
technology
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 this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
1067079: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1067079
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.6.2.1
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
X-Debbugs-Cc: [email protected]
This proposal adds a paragraph to Policy to explicitly state that having
policy about *how* to use a particular technology or mechanism is not
necessarily policy *requiring* the use of that technology or mechanism.
Policy can explicitly state that packages must use a particular
technology, but having policies *about* that technology does not imply
such a mandate.
For example, having policy about how to install info files does not mean
that packages must provide info files. Having policy about how to ship
cron jobs does not mean that packages must ship cron jobs. (This is
already the standard interpretation, and thus this does not *change*
policy, but rather it clarifies that and avoids misinterpretation.)
Stating this up front can help packagers understand that not all parts
of Policy will apply to them, and that they're not required to use a
particular technology *unless* Policy specifically says that.
I've provided a patch implementing this, but I'm happy to modify the
wording as desired, and will make updates as requested.
This patch is also available on Salsa at:
https://salsa.debian.org/josh/policy/-/tree/no-implicit-requirements
diff --git a/policy/ch-scope.rst b/policy/ch-scope.rst
index a279c26..047cdf8 100644
--- a/policy/ch-scope.rst
+++ b/policy/ch-scope.rst
@@ -25,6 +25,12 @@ Debian policy does not mean that it is not a bug, let alone
that it is
desirable. Questions not covered by policy should be evaluated on
their merits.
{+This manual often specifies that if a package wants to use a particular+}
{+technology or mechanism, it must/should meet specific requirements when+}
{+doing so. The inclusion of such requirements in this manual does not+}
{+require the use of that particular technology or mechanism, unless this+}
{+manual explicitly includes a requirement to that effect.+}
The footnotes present in this manual are merely informative, and are not
part of Debian policy itself.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Control: tag -1 wontfix
Russ Allbery <[email protected]> writes:
> Josh Triplett <[email protected]> writes:
>> Mostly, recent discussions in various places regarding whether packages
>> are required to use *cron* to run periodic jobs. Policy says what
>> packages must do if they install a cronjob, but that itself does not
>> mandate the use of cron specifically. It seemed worth explicitly stating
>> the understood-but-unwritten interpretation that having Policy about XYZ
>> does not mandate that packages use XYZ.
> There is a near-universal human tendency to argue with the medium if one
> disagrees with the message. As part of the old saying among lawyers,
> often attributed to Carl Sandburg, goes: "If the facts are against you,
> argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts."
A year and a half later, I'm going to close this bug as wontfix for the
above-stated reason. If someone in the future hits a new reason why we
need to say something along these lines in Policy, feel free to open a new
bug with that use case.
--
Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--- End Message ---
