Re: Adam Di Carlo vs debmake
On 31 Aug 1999, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Santiago Vila <email@example.com> 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
"7eed2e954f91e03fb0088e5a51b11c64" (a truly random sig)