[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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
debian-alpha-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: