On 6/18/09 5:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Braden McDaniel<braden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On 6/18/09 5:03 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
That's why the statement starts with "If possible..."
...
The point is that, in light of this, the guideline should be that these
files should *not* be regenerated unless doing so affords some tangible
improvement.
I don't think the guidelines should tell people what to do one way or
the other. There might be package-specific reasons why regenerating
docs is or is not a good thing (eg, this upstream does indeed have a
history of forgetting to update derived doc files). I think leaving it
to maintainer's discretion is exactly what we should be doing.
My impression is that the term "guideline" indicates that maintainers
should use their discretion. A guideline indicates the default position
to take in the absence of information that would lead to a different
conclusion.
Otherwise they would be called "rules".
--
Braden McDaniel e-mail: <braden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<http://endoframe.com> Jabber: <braden@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
