Re: Finishing the FHS transition
On Sun, 6 May 2001, Chris Waters wrote:
> > I want to suggest to finish the FHS transition. This includes the
> > following steps:
> > - Packages with Standards-Version >= 3.0 must follow the FHS.
> Didn't we already have this discussion? The Standards-Version field
> is not a reliable indication of much of anything. I strongly object
<-- snip -->
In the source package's `Standards-Version' control field, you must
specify the most recent version number of this policy document with
which your package complies. The current version number is 126.96.36.199.
This information may be used to file bug reports automatically if your
package becomes too much out of date.
<-- snip -->
> to removing packages because of what amount to cosmetic issues, and an
Where did I say that I want to remove the packages???
I said that I want to send bug reports.
> incorrect Standards-Version (one that doesn't reflect the version of
> policy that the package _actually_ complies with) is really no more
> than a cosmetic issue (no software actually uses that field).
"you must specify the most recent version number of this policy document
with which your package complies": You must upgrade this field when your
package complies with a more recent policy - and when your package does
already comply with a more recent policy nothing more than an upload with
an updated Standards-Version field is needed.
> I only have a few of the listed packages installed on my system, but
> most of the ones I checked did indeed use /usr/share/doc (and
> /usr/share/man, in those cases where man pages were present). I
> suspect that this is due to the use of debhelper, but anyway....
> Checking for FHS violations should be done by checking for FHS
> violations, not by checking an unreliable and all-but-meaningless
> field in some configuration file.
See above: I want to file a RC bug either because
a) the package follows a too old policy or
b) because it violates the _must_ in the polict that says that the
Standard-Version must get updated.
a) needs discussion whether we consider packages not following the FHS
"too much out of date", b) is a violation of the policy that doesn't need
discussion - that means the only question is whether anyone disagrees that
we want to have all packages in unstable to follow the FHS.
Nicht weil die Dinge schwierig sind wagen wir sie nicht,
sondern weil wir sie nicht wagen sind sie schwierig.