Re: /usr/doc issue

[Raul Miller <moth@debian.org>]

"Raul" == Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:
>  Raul> (*) debian policy 3.0.0.0 was ratified (which specifies the use of FHS
>  Raul> in place of FSSTND) but it did not address how to manage the migration
>  Raul> between the two standards.  The implication is that all packages which
>  Raul> have not yet made the migration are now non-compliant with policy.
> 
>  Raul> This seems to me to be fundamentally wrong -- policy should never have
>  Raul> been ratified which says that every existing package violates policy.
>  Raul> Policy should typically represent the best of existing practice..

On Thu, Aug 19, 1999 at 01:35:38AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>         So how do we have major transitions like the one being
>  contemplated now? To wit: old policy said that packages follow the
>  FSSTND. At some point in the future, we are to follow the FHS. How
>  does one modify policy in such a way that would avoid your objection? 

[I'm going to keep this brief -- I've just got my system back up after
a major power outage, and there are a number of emergencies I still
have to deal with.]

Why not design the transition so that existing (FSSTND) packages can be 
compliant with policy, but so that new packages can also comply with
FHS?

I'm aware that there's a dpkg bug which causes a problem with the 
obvious solution for /usr/doc/, but that seems like not a good reason
to jump in with policy changes which declare every package buggy.

Debian developers are pretty good about heading towards agreed on
goals, by the way...  [Though with as many packages as we have change
cannot be fast.]

Thanks,

-- 
Raul