Re: /usr/doc transition and other things
On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
> Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > As the rest of the committee seemed to take your proposal as being "not to
> > the point" I submit that I'm not the one who "don't get it".
> >
> > If it isn't "maintain the old location during the transition" then please
> > inform my ignorant self, as I may need to change my vote.
>
> It's about incremental upgrades of packages from stable to unstable breaking
> things in stable like dwww that expect to find the docs in the old location.
It was my understanding that, like the man and info transitions, these
problems are resolved by giving the tools the knowledge of the dual
locations. Our current binary dependencie scheme is sufficient to deal
with "incremental upgrades". Those packages that use the new location only
need depend on the "fixed" version of the viewer for a smooth incremental
upgrade.
This leaves us with only the problem of user expectations for /usr/doc,
and that has been the issue before the technical committee.
It seems to me that the fact that two, very bright, people can see the
issue in such different terms, has brought this issue before the
technical committee. It also seems that this committee is never going to
be given a problem that doesn't have some component like this, deep in the
heart of the matter. As in most arbitration situations, this is likely to
force a solution that neither side wants to see. What this tells me, is
that we should do whatever it takes to keep such issues from coming before
this committee in the future, as no one is likely to appreciate the
solutions generated there.
At this point it isn't clear to me just what action the technical
committee should be taking, or whether we have an adequate ballot for
arriving at a solution. What _is_ clear, is that we can't continue to
thrash back and forth over this issue for very much longer, or my other
predictions about production deadlock will come true for completely
different reasons.
I would appreciate some feedback from the other members of the technical
committee, as I haven't seen a vote from any of the remaining members.
Guy, Klee, Ian, can you give some indication of whether the current ballot
is sufficient for the committee's needs, or should it be re-organized in
light of the latest revelations?
Waiting is,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- See www.linuxpress.com for more details _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Reply to: