On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 01:08:41AM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> > And, gee, shock horror, I'll say the exact same thing I said last time
> > you mentioned this, and that is that it's much more alike things that
> > -policy discusses that things the packaging-manual discusses.
> Yes, I remember. I thought you were suggesting that we move both
> paragraphs to the packaging manual. If not, then I so suggest. Makes
> a lot more sense that sticking more stuff in policy that doesn't
> belong there just because there's a little bit of stuff that doesn't
> belong there already.
Why do you think it doesn't belong there? Especially when there's already
heaps of similar stuff that's there for the same reason?
From the policy Abstract: ``This manual describes the policy requirements
for the Debian GNU/Linux distribution. This includes ... several design issues
of ther operating system, as well as techincal requirements that each
package must satisfy to be included in the distribution.''
From the packaging manual Abstract: ``This manual describes the technical
aspects of creating Debian binary and source packages. ...''
This is fundamentally a design decision. dpkg-source won't die if you
don't follow it, and dpkg won't complain if you try to install a particular
.deb.
Perhaps, rather than just saying what you think, maybe you could back
it up with some evidence corroborating that it makes sense? Please?
It's a bit difficult to argue with ``I think <foo>.''
Cheers,
a ``No, you don't. You think <bar>. Got it? <bar>. <bar> <bar>
<black sheep>. Are we clear?'' j
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred.
``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds
Attachment:
pgpm7NI0UA5lG.pgp
Description: PGP signature