On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:28:22AM +0200, Pierre THIERRY wrote: > I have a problem with a bug filed on r-doc-html (#300765). The > documentation was entirely in /usr/lib, and it seems that all R packages > have all their files under /usr/lib, whatever their type or purpose. > I filed a bug with severity serious, as this breaks Policy 9.1.1 (FHS is > mandatory). But the maintainer argued that R was packaged like this from > the beginning, and that because it must stay in the distribution, the > bug had to be downgraded to wishlist. > SHouldn't he get the approval of the release team or ftpmasters before > doing such an arbitrary downgrade? http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=300765&msg=14 He has the approval of the release team. When architecture-independent files located in /usr/lib aren't referenced by the rest of the package and can be trivially relocated to /usr/share, we certainly should consider it release-critical that they be moved to the FHS-mandated location. When a package has many such files whose paths are deeply embedded in the package, some latitude is warranted. A similar exception was already made for gnustep for sarge. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature