Re: /usr/doc transition and other things
On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 07:44:27PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> However, I see there are two places in the policy manual which back up my
> point. Both are in section 2.4.1:
>
> "When the standards change in a way that
> requires every package to change the major number will be changed."
>
> So there was the assumption that policy can be chnaged in ways that requires
> all packages to change. What you seem to propose is that we never bump the
> major number again.
>
> The second was quoted by Anthony already:
>
> "This value will be used to file bug reports automatically if your
> package becomes too much out of date."
>
> The critical part is "too much". These two words give us enough room to
> *not* file bug reports right after releasing a new policy manual, even with
> different major number. Hence I would not consider all packages to be
> "buggy", just because they don't comply to the very latest standards
> version.
>
> I believe that introducing major changes in the policy manual and having a
> smooth transition is not a contradiction, even if all packages suddenly
> don't comply to policy any longer.
I hope you don't mean that you think the current /usr/doc ->
/usr/share/doc breakage is appropriate or necessary.
For example, I see that first quote from the policy manual as being aimed
at times when depreciated policy is pulled from use. I see nothing there
which indicates that the policy manual should get a new major version
number when new policy is introduced -- before any packages have had a
chance to adapt.
--
Raul
Reply to: