Re: /usr/doc issue
"Raul" == Raul Miller <email@example.com> writes:
> Raul> (*) debian policy 126.96.36.199 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
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.]