Re: Bug#42477: PROPOSED} delay the /usr/doc transition till after potato
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:
> I have a couple of things to say about this proposal. I think
> that we have a bad track record when it comes to merely deferring the
> issue until a latter date (I point to the archive reorg issue
Which is a political issue. We're bad at political issues -- we're
good at technical ones. This one is a technical one.
We've got some people saying that we can actually complete the
transition before POTATO gets released, and other saying that if we
delay, we won't be able to complete before WOODY. I think both
extremes are wrong.
> Secondly, I think that the policy should not hard code release
> names, we should just say that we are moving to the FHS, with a few
I STRONGLY disagree. If policy can't mention release names, then we
should create a formal strategy, which defines the future direction of
policy. We *need* to be able to plan for the future, for situations
like this. If policy continues to ignore the release cycle, then ugly
messes like this are just going to arise again and again.
A static policy may have been adequate when the system was originally
being built, and there was no release cycle, but now that it's built,
we need to start planning for *change* instead of assuming that the
system will be static for eternity.
Strategy should take precedence over policy. Policy should be for
immediate, here-and-now questions, and Strategy should be for "where
are we going, and how are we going to get there" issues.
> However, I think this is a step backwards, we still have time
> to set up a transition, and I think this proposal is premature
> (especially as people are talking about withdrawing formal objections
> to the symlink proposal). If the objections are withdrawn, we shall
> be once more in the running.
I'm guessing that there's just about zero chance that Santiago will
withdraw his objections to either proposal.
> Finally, the tech ctte may come forth with a proposed
> transition; the DPL has asked the ctte to consider this problem.
As long as they have *all* the facts, and are aware of my proposal as
well as the bletcherous mandatory symlink proposal, fine. And as long
as they're aware of NEW objections to the ghastly mandatory symlink
proposal, like the requirement to add postinsts to all the packages
that currently lack them, possibly for eternity, certainly till at
least Woody+2 or +3 (which I wasn't aware of until *after* the
proposal was already mooted).
--
Chris Waters xtifr@dsp.net | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or xtifr@debian.org | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
Reply to: