seth vidal schrieb: > On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 15:37 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> Arjan van de Ven schrieb: >>> On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 13:50 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: >>>> On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 08:02 -0400, seth vidal wrote: [...] >>> And if there is really no functional requirements in the spec.. maybe >>> there should be a second spec/recommendation for functional things? That >>> could be useful for external projects as well, as a checklist in the >>> "did we forget anything to be useful to a wide audience" kind of way.. >> Can't hurt. > Who would do this and what would motivate them? It seemed to me some people were interested in maintaining such a list. E.g. like "A superb extras package should - support UTF8 - IPv6 ..." If some people want that then it okay for me. > If it is just their own > interest in the package then by all means, let them, but leave this out > of the extras packaging guidelines. Of course. > it does not bear even a passing resemblance to something useful to > further clutter up the packaging guidelines with. Exactly. Cu thl
