Re: /usr/doc transition and other things
On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 02:11:21PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> I hope you don't mean that you think the current /usr/doc ->
> /usr/share/doc breakage is appropriate or necessary.
I consider this discussion decoupled from this particular issue. (My opinion
about the transition of /usr/doc -> /usr/share/doc can be found in the
archive or get by private mail).
> 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.
I agree with your interpretation. I don't agree that introducing a new
policy and making it mandatory should be decoupled in most situations. It
just doesn't make a significant procedural difference in my point of view
(the transition will still happen, and mass bug reports won't be filed in
most cases anyway) and has the danger of making the transition more
painful/slower.
I don't say that we shouldn't take the policy manual seriously. But on the
other hand common sense should be enough to see that we don't expect all
3000 packages to be updated in 24 hours. Formalizing this situation any
further than the "too much out of date" part in the current policy seems to
be overkill to me. Well, that's just me. I don't like bureaucraz^Hcy very
much. I also see a danger of making it too hard to make progress with the
Debian policy, slowing down the overall development of the distribution. We
already dropped release goals completely. Making the policy less demanding
seems to be another step in the, IMO, wrong direction.
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
Reply to: