Re: Problems with libc 2.0.6-0.5
On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, Doug DeJulio wrote:
> How is policy decided?
Policy is decided by the Debian developers and issues are usually taken
up on debian-policy.
> While it makes sense for floppies, it's pretty wrong for a big enough hard
> disk, from a stability point of view.
I agree. Plus, it would allow you to repair a hosed partition and look
over it in the event that your libc got screwed up somehow. FYI, static
binaries in /bin are the norm on most UN*X products.
> There are a couple of policy decisions I've got strong disagreements with --
> the worst is the relationship between /usr/include and the kernel header
> files. I think it's potentially *disasterous* to have files in /usr/include
> that aren't in sync with the local kernel.
Actually, I agree with it, as does Linus, for many reasons. First off, on
a distribution-wide level, it makes more sense since you can at least
get a "common base" that you're guaranteed to have on any stock system
header- and struct-wise. As you can tell from sysklogd alone, this could
make a huge difference. On the other hand, it bites in those same
situations since I have to compile two versions of some packages just for
dev kernels vs stable ones.
> Anyway, I guess I just want to know where to go to most effectively lobby.
The debian-policy list is the best place, IMO. You could always take it
up on debian-devel, but it will probably get moved over to debian-policy
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .