[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#2180: There should be a fsstnd arbitrator

Fernando Alegre writes ("Bug#2180: There should be a fsstnd arbitrator"):
> Package: (project)
> There should be a FSSTND arbitrator which could give an "official"
> interpretation of the fsstnd mandates. 

No, there shouldn't.

The package maitnainer should interpret the FSSTND as they see fit,
and if arbitration is required then Ian Murdock can do it.

>  I am the maintainer of the
> timezone packages and I seem to disagree with a user on where a file
> should go (currently /usr/sbin/zdump). Our interpretations of the fsstnd
> are different. We could go on forever closing and reopening a bug report
> dealing with the location of a file. Someone should arbitrate those
> conflicts.

You, the package maintainer, are the arbiter of whether a reported bug
is a bug or not, unless the person demands to have Ian M. make a
ruling on the matter.

> Besides, I think that the fsstnd is too imprecise regarding the location
> of files in sbin directories. I consider this to be a bug of the fsstnd
> itself. However, I think there is no pseudopackage called (fsstnd) or
> (layout). Who is the Debian fsstnd maintainer? He should forward this bug
> report to the upstream maintainers, once I find out how to submit it :-)

This isn't a Debian bug.

Since there is no Debian bug here I'm closing this report.


Reply to: