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

Re: Technical committee mails ?

>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> writes:

 Ian> I propose the following resolution:

        I object, on the grounds that it far exceeds what we have been
 asked to do in this instance. Policy creation mechanisms inplace can
 handle the rest of the FHS transition quite well, without us poking
 our nose where it is not wanted. 

        Shall we stick to the topic at hand, then, and not go and try
 and take on a transitiohn where the peoiple in charge have asked for
 no help?

 Ian>  Given that:
 Ian>  * Wichert has made an announcement saying we should preserve the
 Ian>  status quo pending a decision;

        The status quo of what? Not the whole FHS move, but onlyu a
 small aspect -- the usr/doc move. The adoption of the FHS was never
 brought into the picture. 

 Ian>  * it will obviously take a little while to make a decision,
 Ian>  particularly given that the technical committee's internal mechanisms
 Ian>  haven't been debugged yet because they've not previously been used;


 Ian>  * packages already using /usr/share/doc may make whatever decision we
 Ian>  come up with hard to implemement;

        That is indeed a possibility. 

 Ian>  * people on debian-policy have tried getting the policy reverted to
 Ian>  preserve the status quo as requested by Wichert, with no avail;

        Because they thought there was no need: by fiat, and
 convention, we are on hold as far as the /usr/doc move is concerned;
 it was hoped that the decision would come fast eough so there is no
 need to amend policy quite yet. If we get closer to the freeze date,
 the policy shall so be amended. 

        In any case, this is not our concern.

 Ian>  * no analysis of the changes between FSSTND and FHS seems to have
 Ian>  been made to determine whether to make the change and if so how best
 Ian>  to do it;

        Again, that is not our concern. The FHS was adopted, and
 details have been, for the most part, worked out quietly, and
 effectively, apart from the one area where the tech ctte has been
 asked to adjudicate.

 Ian>  The Technical Committee mandates that, firstly:

 Ian>  * Until a the a list of the differences between FSSTND and FHS, with
 Ian>  a decision whether to change and if applicable a transition plan for
 Ian>  each, has been prepared, Debian should continue to use the FHS.

        I strongly object to the tech ctte overturning a decision by
 the policy group where most of the transition has taken place, and
 other aspects of the move decided on.  This is not something they
 need help on, and there is no need for us to grab such power.

 Ian>  And in particular:

 Ian>  * Until a decision on transition to FHS directories has been made by
 Ian>  the Committee, /usr/share/doc, /var/state and /var/mail should not
 Ian>  yet be used to by Debian packages.  Instead, packages should continue
 Ian>  to place files in and refer to /usr/doc, /var/lib and
 Ian>  /var/spool/mail.

        The policy group seems far better informed. The next version
 of the FHS shall not mention /var/state; so we already have agreed
 not to go to /var/state. The move to /var/mail has also been
 discussed, and there is a proposal in place that maintains full
 backwards compatibility. 

 Ian>  Therefore:

 Ian>  * The policy manual should immediately be amended accordingly
 Ian>  immediately, to change the reference to the FHS back to the FSSTND,
 Ian>  and to add a comment saying that /usr/share/doc, /var/state and
 Ian>  /var/mail are not yet to be used or referred to.

        As I said, the policy group is better informed. I propose we
 learn about the problem at hand, and solve that, rather than jumping
 in and solving things that need no resolution.

 Ian>  * If the policy editors or policy group feel it necessary to ratify
 Ian>  this change to the policy manual with the formal policy process this
 Ian>  should be done after the policy has been changed; the policy editors
 Ian>  should change the policy manual and issue an updated version
 Ian>  immediately.

       I think this is truyly a mad grab for power (1/2 ;-). I
 strongly object to this.

 Ian>  * Lintian and any other package checking software which has already
 Ian>  made the change to FHS should be changed back.

        Why? Just because the /usr/doc move is controversial, you want
 to move us all the way back? What is the justification for that?

 Many people go throughout life committing partial suicide--destroying
 their talents, energies, creative qualities.  Indeed, to learn how to
 be good to oneself is often more difficult than to learn how to be
 good to others. Joshua Leibman
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E

Reply to: