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

Re: Adam Di Carlo vs debmake

On 31 Aug 1999, Adam Di Carlo wrote:

> Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> writes:
> > FYI: This was already discussed in debian-mentors or debian-policy.
> > Please read the changelog for debmake 3.5.16 and 3.5.17.
> Yes... I was the one who raised it back then, IIRC.  So in 3.5.16 you
> decided to follow policy.  In 3.5.17, 
> debmake (3.5.17) frozen unstable; urgency=high
>   * debstd: Undo most the changes in 3.5.16. For now, it just warns.
>  -- Santiago Vila <sanvila@ctv.es>  Mon, 23 Nov 1998 20:35:08 +0100
> My point is a simple one -- you adopt the stance of adhering to Policy
> when it suits you (/usr/share/doc), but you break Policy when you feel
> like it (allowing packages to edit other conffiles -- with a warning
> as a sop to Policy).

Policy has not always been clear about conffiles vs configuration
files. Fortunately this is expected to improve some day.

I have chosen to remove this feature in several steps, the first of which
is to give a BIG warning. I just want to give debmake users the required
time to be aware of their buggy debian/rules files and modify them
accordingly. Does this mean debstd "breaks" policy? I think it is the
debian/rules who actually break it.

The important thing is that this feature is *deprecated* in either way,
please read debstd(1), and it will disappear eventually.

[ BTW: Please let's concentrate on technical issues and not call people
  things ].


 "7eed2e954f91e03fb0088e5a51b11c64" (a truly random sig)

Reply to: