Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 5 Sep 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > Do you not find the version numbers suggestive? > > > > debian-policy_2.4.1.3.deb > > developers-reference_2.4.1.3.deb > > packaging-manual_2.4.1.1.deb
Suggestive but not compelling. > > Would there be serious objections to having the policy > > maintainers actually take over the developers reference? > > I have nothing to object. The fact that they are "purely documentation" > does not necessarily mean that having the policy maintainers to take them > is a bad idea. Correction. IMHO, the most cogent point was made by John: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Manoj writes: > > Would there be serious objections to having the policy maintainers > > actually take over the developers reference? > > I think it's an excellent idea, if you will bring it up to date and keep it > there. That's more important than classifying it as documentation or > policy. Yes, and that "if" there is what worries me a bit. In my thinking, the issue of who is best to maintain it is tied to who's decisions are most likely to cause an update to be required of the manual under consideration. Taking another look at the TOC for the Developer's Reference, one can't help feeling that really the Developer's Reference mainly discusses how developers interact with the Debian archive (structure of the archive, uploading, etc.). If I had to identify what it was coupled with, I would say the maintenance of and standards used with the Debian archive itself. That is, the work done by Guy Maor, Brian White, the dinstall maintainer (not packaged yet, unfortunately, so this is Guy I think), and other archive maintainers. For instance, I need to add mention of the "proposed-updates" and how to upload to there into the developer's reference. That was a change instituted by the archive maintainers rather than the policy group. It is possible that the Policy Group is hoping to widen the scope of Policy to cover archive maintenance and organization functions. To see what I mean about how these functions are currently not under the purview of the Policy document, see the single para in "2.1.7 Subsections" of the policy currently. Anyhow, if the Policy group does wish to expand its scope in this way then the Developer's Ref. should be considered a core policy document. Otherwise, the decision seems rather arbitrary, and perhaps prone to being a detriment to proper maintenance of the Developer's Reference. Remember also that putting documentation under the aegis of the Policy Group does impose additional "overhead" (but not much) to the process of updating the documents. On the other hand, the Packaging manual seems an excellent addition to the Policy Group's duties, assuming they are up to the task. Note: I certainly hope that no one thinks that I'm trying to maintain control over the package (territoriality). I really sincerely am very busy right now, and do find it hard sometime to maintian my current committments even (doc-base is languishing a bit and it's all my fault, *sigh*). I really am only trying to keep the interests of the accuracy of Debian documentation. .....A. P. [EMAIL PROTECTED]<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>