Re: I'd like to coordinate a major update of stable
>>"Joey" == Joey Hess <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Joey> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> 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> Er, what are you saying. Does the symlink solution fix b) in a non-optimal
Joey> way, or not at all (and what is "2")?
I guerss I meant (b) above.
>> The proposal that I put forth before the -policy
>> group, and before the tech ctte, has to do with the first problem.
Joey> Why did you ignore the second problem? It's clear you knew
Joey> about it on July 17th, when you posted a proposal to fix it
Joey> that included:
Because I felt that the former was important enough, and that
was what I concentrated on. Since it has the added benefit of making
the (b) less critical, and we probably would have fixed everyhing by
the time woody has happened, I did not bother getting a better
solution out there.
Surely you are not berating me for not proposing a solution
for both problems? Why am I supposed to be responsible for all the
problems there were? I took (a), proposed a solution that also made
(b) less critical, but did not optimally solve it.
I had enough grief over the symlinks ot to push other
developers to also make potentially complex changes to their code. I
figured some one would take up the slack. Glad to see you have.
>> * We should not break backwards compatibility during the transition
>> period. This is a quality of implementation issue
>> During the transition, we need to provide backwards
>> compatibility, firstly for programs ike `dwww', and `dhelp', and
>> also for our users who have gotten used to looking under a single
>> dir (`/usr/doc/') for docs (``/usr/doc/package''). During the
>> transition, the documentation could be in in two places, and that
>> is not good
Nice goal, if I say so myself. Glad to see you covered it. The
symlink proposal does push the need to do anything vis-a-vis dwww
and dhelp to a later date, but it is not, as you point out, a
Joey> I cannot belive you claim you are not aware of this issue, or
I was. I did not have as facile a solution, and did not
propose a fix for that to the tech ctte. The solution for (b) is to
fix all programs, or something. I did not have a solution I liked for
Joey> that this is not at least half of the issue the techical
Joey> committe was called upon to fix. I can find numerous mentions
The proposal that I put forth, before the ctte, and before the
-policy, solved (a), and deferred (b). You now have proposed a
solution to (b), and o one is objecting.
Unless you feel like continuing this discussion, which has all
the signs of degenerating into a flame fest, I think we either calm
down, and move away from injecting personalities in here, or nothing
really shall be achieved.
Joey> of problem b) throughout the policy list archives for last
Joey> month. It's not as if this were a concern I just brought up.
No it is not. It is just not something that had a solution
proposed until now.
If you were to bring it up in -policy, it may well pass.
All wars are civil wars, because all men are brothers ... Each one
owes infinitely more to the human race than to the particular country
in which he was born. Francois Fenelon
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E