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

Re: I'd like to coordinate a major update of stable

Without getting into the CURRENT debate, I'd like to suggest that the problem
with where docs are kept(/usr/doc vs /usr/share/doc) doesn't apply to Joey's
original proposal to update stable with new and updated packages.  If slink has
a policy to put documentation in /usr/doc, then that's where packages to be
added to slink should put their docs, or at least make a symlink in there.  Back
to the original topic, I'd like to ask if anyone has a problem with the
stable-update release idea itself.  If you like the idea that we can offer
updates to stable as well as unstable, then let's not worry about issues which
should only be addressed when talking about the unstable release.  Speak your
mind, Yes, it's a good idea, or No, it's not.  If you have an idea for new
things to add to Debian, then that's for unstable.

							Dave Bristel

On 20 Aug 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

> Date: 20 Aug 1999 12:32:42 -0500
> From: Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org>
> To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Cc: debian-ctte@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: I'd like to coordinate a major update of stable
> Resent-Date: 20 Aug 1999 17:52:02 -0000
> Resent-From: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Resent-cc: recipient list not shown: ;
> Hi,
> >>"Joey" == Joey Hess <joey@kitenet.net> writes:
>  Joey> You are the one who doesn't understant the problem.
>         I see.
>         Rather than berate each other about our obtuseness on this
>  issue in particular, or a lack of acuity in general, I posit that
>  there are two issues involved:
>  a) frustration involved in readin the docs in two different locations
>     The symlink solution addresses this
>  b) incremental upgrades to unstable packages from unstable, which
>     makes documentation not be accessable with tools such as dwww,
>     man, ect. Your stable upgrades solution addresses that.
>         The stable-upgrades solution has no impact on the former
>  problem, and the symlinks solution only addresses the latter in a non
>  optimal fashion.
>         I agree that the symlinks solution does not handle 2; and your
>  stable upgrades solution would be required.
>  Joey> I am hugely tired of trying to explin this to people, when
>  Joey> absolutly no one seems to get it. This is a large part of why I
>  Joey> proposed this in the first place. Since no one understand the
>  Joey> problem anyway, I doubt we will ever get a correct
>  Joey> solution. :-(
>         If no one gets it, possibly the reason is not that every one
>  is, umm, dumb? The proposal that I put forth before the -policy
>  group, and before the tech ctte, has to do with the first problem. 
>         Yoiu did bring up the second solution, but never explained
>  that the domain of the problem was different from the one that the
>  symlink solution was addressing (adding to the confusion is the fact
>  that the symlink solution seems to solve the second problem in a
>  kludgy, suboptimal fashion).
>         manoj
> -- 
>  "Do not stop to ask what is it; Let us go and make our visit." Eliot,
>  "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock"
> 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
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: