Ballot update (was Re: usr/man vs usr/share/man?)
I'm quoting Manoj's message completely because the original went to
debian-devel. The significant paragraph is:
> You are talking about partial upgrades from slink to
> potato. For this, we can ask people to upgrade first to proposed
> upgrades, which contain a fixed man-db package, or to edit
> /etc/manpath.conf manually.
If we really consider this to be a reasonable solution, let's take it
to it's logical conclusion:
* * * * *
Potato includes release-notes which
(1) warn users about the directory change and the requirement that they
fix any local procedures or programs which only work under fsstnd,
(2) asks that users who wish to do a partial update from slink to
potato first install an "fhs" package which conflicts with versions
of programs like man-db, dhelp, etc. which don't support the double
directory standard,
(3) if there are any packages (such as boa) which can't be modified
for the double directory standard we go into potato with "known bugs"
filed against them,
(4) we ask that the policy committee relax the policy manual
slightly to tolerate this transition period (perhaps saying that
http://localhost/doc/<package>/<filename> is optional as long as web
servers which do not support this mention the issue in their package
description).
Personally, I consider such release-notes a sign that we did something
wrong, but (in my opinion) we already know that we did something wrong,
and the problem is to fix it...
* * * * *
The closest ballot proposal to this solution is Joey's (#2 leave things as
they are). While it doesn't say anything specifically about the release
notes, it's general enough ("fix the bugs") to support the release notes.
If you consider this to be a good idea, let's switch our first prefernce
votes to this item -- if the three of us agree on this we can have this
vote wrapped up today. [Personally, I'm going to sit back and think about
this for an hour or two -- I often realize I've overlooked an issue
right after I've sent off an email. And if I do change my vote I'm going
to first change my personal vote and wait a while longer before casting
my chairman's vote. And, finally, I'm going to explicitly say with my
vote that I consider these release notes to be an important aspect of this
strategy.]
If enough people mention the release notes in their votes for ballot
item 2, then I'll consider the committee to have voted for them, and the
committee will formally advise the policy committee about the release
notes -- otherwise I'll just mention them as a personal preference if
we pass ballot item 2.
--
Raul
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 11:34:41PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Raul" == Raul Miller <moth@magenta.com> writes:
>
> Raul> [Earlier today I posted saying I didn't think this was a problem.]
> Raul> [I was wrong.]
>
> Raul> On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 09:20:38AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Is this not just an issue of swetting MANPATH defaults?
>
> Raul> There's still a problem here: If someone upgrades a slink system
> Raul> without installing all of potato (perhaps using apt-get install), and
> Raul> the installed packages supply /usr/share/man man pages and it doesn't
> Raul> have a dependency on some fhs capable version of man-db then yes:
> Raul> there's a problem.
>
> You are talking about partial upgrades from slink to
> potato. For this, we can ask people to upgrade first to proposed
> upgrades, which contain a fixed man-db package, or to edit
> /etc/manpath.conf manually.
>
> We do want to make partial upgrades smooth, but it is not
> unreasonable to ask people to upgrade to proposed-updates before
> doing paertial upgrades.
>
> manoj
> --
> Audience: What will become of Linux when the Hurd is ready? Eric
> Youngdale: Err... is Richard Stallman here? From the Linux conference
> in spring '95, Berlin
> 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
Reply to: