Bug#147164: ping and new proposal

[Thomas Lange]

Remove the outdated /doc/docpolicy. Even the "current draft of the new
policy" is outdated and deprecated.

Instead of a whole policy manual which is outdated for a long time my
proposal is to just list a few things to consider on /doc.


Currently we have these items on /doc about the policy:

Manual licenses comply with DFSG.
Directory structure: filesystem, WWW, FTP.
We use Docbook XML for our documents. Use of DebianDoc SGML is being phased out.
Every document has one maintainer.



"Every document has one maintainer." seems to be not true since I
found this in debian/control:
Maintainer: Debian Documentation Project <debian-***@lists.debian.org>

So just remove this item.


My proposal to list these items on /doc:

Manual licenses comply with DFSG
We use Docbook XML for our documents
The sources should be at https://salsa.debian.org/ddp-team
www.debian.org/doc/<manual-name> will be the official URL
Please ask on debian-doc if you like to write a new document


Any objections on removing /doc/docpolicy?

[Joost van Baal-Ilić]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2019 at 09:17:13PM +0200, Thomas Lange wrote:
<snip>

Post by Thomas Lange
Manual licenses comply with DFSG
We use Docbook XML for our documents
The sources should be at https://salsa.debian.org/ddp-team
www.debian.org/doc/<manual-name> will be the official URL
Please ask on debian-doc if you like to write a new document
Any objections on removing /doc/docpolicy?

Not from me, if your 5-line summary is indeed published in some easy to find
place.

Thanks a lot!

Bye,

Joost

[Andrei POPESCU]

Post by Thomas Lange
"Every document has one maintainer." seems to be not true since I
So just remove this item.

I would suggest this should read "Every document must have at least one
active maintainer" (regardless of what the Maintainer: field contains).

Kind regards,
Andrei

[Thomas Lange]

Post by Andrei POPESCU
I would suggest this should read "Every document must have at least one
active maintainer" (regardless of what the Maintainer: field contains).

So you mean the usual Debian package maintainer? Then we do not need
to mention this explicitly, but better say that every manual should
be also a Debian package. Are there manuals which are not in Debian
package?

[Andrei POPESCU]

Post by Thomas Lange

Post by Andrei POPESCU
I would suggest this should read "Every document must have at least one
active maintainer" (regardless of what the Maintainer: field contains).

So you mean the usual Debian package maintainer? Then we do not need
to mention this explicitly, but better say that every manual should
be also a Debian package. Are there manuals which are not in Debian
package?

What I meant was that every document should be actively maintained
(content wise).

Whether it's packaged is an implementation detail (in my opinion not
even a requirement), so it doesn't really matter what the Maintainer:
field says.

Kind regards,
Andrei