Re: Let's just convert debhelper and do NMUs
On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 04:57:35PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > Joeyh has *NOT* modified debhelper. This is a conscious decision, not slacking.
> > He states that he will change it when policy has decided what the right thing
> > is. Until then debhelper stands as is.
>
> Sean knows exactly where I stand on this issue. I just want to add that if
> people decide this idea is the way to go, I will modify debhelper for it.
>
> Personally, I am opposed to the idea because it ignores the entire partial
> upgrades question. But I can be overridden.
Oy, it dosn't ignore it, it states, more or less, that it is better to have
some packages using /usr/doc and some using /usr/share/doc for a while is
OK.
Supporters of this plan relize that this is a Bad Thing, but belive it is
the least bad of the possible options.
This means that the clear majority of the packages in unstable do not
conform to policy. This is not a change from the present status.
To attempt to sumarize:
Con: This means that almost all packages violate policy and need to be
updated before potato is released (NOT frozen)... 3593, more or
less.
(from 'cat Contents-i386|grep ^usr/doc|rev|cut -f1 -d''|sort|uniq|
less') (not interested in comments on technique, unless they result
in a change that is significant at a 90% confidance level. If you
don't know what that means, I'm not interested.)
Reply: It is only a two-line change to debian/rules in about 99% of all
cases. (I can't think of a possibility where it isn't, but I leave
a 1% margin of werdness.) A change to debhelper and a recompile of
the package in question will fix the package cleanly in many cases.
Con: There will be a period where some packages use usr/doc and some
usr/share/doc, confusing users.
Reply: It's called unstable for a reason.
Con: All packages will have to depend on a base-files with a
usr/share/doc/ directory.
Reply: Is there one that dosn't?
Any others? If so, please use the form Con:, or Pro:, and a Reply: to a
posted Con or Pro... that should keep this from becoming more circular then
it already is.
-=- James Mastros
--
We are at code S-I-G-H. Repeat, code sigh.
Reply to: