Re: weekly policy summary
On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
> Amendments
>
> FHS-compliant location of compiled examples (#42849)
> * Under discussion.
> * Proposed by Joey Hess; seconded by Julian Gilbey and Chris Waters.
> * This is a proposal for dealing with architecture-specific example
> files. The idea is to put them in /usr/lib/package/examples, with
> symlink(s) as necessary to make /usr/share/doc/package/examples
> point to them.
That's a very nice idea!
> Delay the /usr/doc transition till after potato (#42477)
> * Under discussion.
> * Proposed by Chis Waters; seconded by Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Ardo
> van Rangelrooij and Julian Gilbey.
> * Change policy to only make FHS /usr/share/doc be part of policy
> after potato is released.
> ( Santiago Vila and Joel Klecker formally object. )
As I stated in a previous mail: I moved the doc files of all my
packages to /usr/share/doc and I realy don't want to do a further
update to downgrade from FHS for my packages. I can live with
the fact, that the docs might be not found by the doc-tools because
my packages hasn't any documents there which for example could be
viewed by a web browser or so. The packages will not break anything
because of the docs are situated in /usr/share/doc. I hope that
there are no problems for the potato release if there are some
packages in the /usr/share hirarchy. It least, if we don't make
the FHS change completely for potato, we should *allow* files on
the future location, if they don't avoid users from finding important
informations.
> Usr/share/doc vs. /usr/doc (#40706)
> * Rejected.
> * Proposed by Manoj Srivastava; seconded by Joey Hess, Roland
> Rosenfeld, Joseph Carter, William Ono and Stefan Gybas.
> * /usr/doc has moved, and we want to have a good transition to
> /usr/share/doc without breaking backwards compatability and
> incremental upgrades. This proposal is to make each package manage
> the transition on its own by managing a /usr/doc/package ->
> /usr/share/doc/package symlink. At some future date, all these
> links will be removed.
> ( This was shot down with 4 objections. This issue is probably
> going to the technical committe. There are too many proposals
> about this to keep track of. )
> Active proposals
>
> Automatic migration to /usr/share/doc (#42634)
> * Proposed by Ian Jackson.
> * Yet another migration proposal. Ian promises to fix any dpkg bugs
> that hold us back. Packages pre-depend on a new base-files that
> moves /usr/doc to /usr/share/doc and installs a symlink. Packages
> install docs in /usr/share/doc.
> Directories for local initialization scripts
> * Proposed by Julio.
> * Add a directory /etc/init.local (or maybe /etc/init.d.local?) for
> locally installed init scripts, which can be handled by
> update-rc.d like the scripts in /etc/init.d.
> ( People seem puzzled about why this would be necessary at all. )
That's a nice proposal!! It implements a clean way for administrators.
Please implement that.
What about an /rcS.local (or maybe /rcS.d.local)? May be that makes
sense, too.
> Automatic migration to /usr/share/doc (#42633)
> * Under discussion.
> * Proposed by Mike Goldman.
> * Another /usr/share/doc migration proposal. This one says
> base-files should run a script that moves all files to
> /usr/share/doc on upgrade to potato. Also, dpkg should be modified
> to put files in /usr/share/doc when packages with files in
> /usr/doc are installed.
> Stalled proposals
>
> Test suite proposal (#41902)
> * Stalled.
> * Proposed by Ian Jackson.
> * This proposal deals with regression tests for packages. The idea
> is to make a separate package_version.tests.tar.gz file that
> contains regression tests. It details what should be in this file
> and how it works.
May be it is possible to implement it analogous to the examples:
/usr/share/doc/<package>/testsuit
with a symlink to
/usr/lib/<package>/testsuit
for machine dependant files.
I consider it to be very important to have a testsuit for those packages,
which come with such a thing in the source distribution.
> Modify dpkg-buildpackage to handle FHS move (#41729)
> * Stalled.
> * Proposed by Julian Gilbey.
> * x Another /usr/share/doc transition proposal. This one is to make
> dpkg-buildpackage move /usr/doc to /usr/share/doc when a package
> is built.
> Permit/require use of bz2 for source packages (#39299)
> * Old.
> * Proposed on 10 Jun 1999 by Chris Lawrence; seconded by Goswin
> Brederlow.
> * "I propose that we permit the use of bzip2 to compress source
> package files (.orig.tar and .diff for most packages, .tar for
> native packages). I further propose that the use of bzip2 be
> mandatory for newly uploaded source files, and that any existing
> source packages in the archive in gzip format exceeding 5 MB of
> compressed space be converted upon the freeze for potato."
> ( The reason this was proposed is because we're almost overflowing
> the second source CD already. This is a very contentious proposal.
> )
I didn't followed all the arguing about gz vis bz2. I further
argument for staying with gz is in my opinion, that nearly all
upstream source packages are gzipped and so the upstream source
would have bin changed by the decompression and compression by bz2.
In the end, when we have seen that the /usr/share/doc transition
is the most important issue, I want to repeat my wich, that maintainers
who switched to /usr/share/doc yet not will be enforced to switch
back.
By the way, /usr/share/man transition doesn't seem to be such a
problem. Could/should this be done without problems?
Kind regards
Andreas.
Reply to: