[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian and FHS

>>"Steve" == Steve Robbins <steve@nyongwa.montreal.qc.ca> writes:

 Steve> Thanks.  I wasn't sure whether the general public could make proposals.  

        Actually, formal proposals still have to be made by a
 developer: since the proposer is also a second. But you can make
 suggestions, and just convince developers to take it to the next

 Steve> Poking around in /usr/share/doc/debian-policy, for example, I
 Steve> see a "proposal" document.  This document is written as a
 Steve> *proposal* to propose policy changes, so I was unsure of its
 Steve> status.  It is over a year old, so I had assumed that the
 Steve> proposal has been adopted without the language being updated
 Steve> to read as a *policy* on proposing policy changes :).

        Umm, we like to keep things informal around here. So that
 document kinda reflects the way things are done, without having the
 weight of policy. 

 Steve> However, the document is a bit vague on who can make
 Steve> proposals.  Section 3.1 specifically says that one must be a
 Steve> developer, but doesn't say anything about using the BTS.  And
 Steve> section 3.4 which speculates on using the BTS says at first
 Steve> that "(note: this should be open to anyone at all)", and then
 Steve> "Only registered Debian developers may formally create
 Steve> proposals."

        I think the intent was that only Debian developers make formal
 proposals and second the proposal; and only developers can offer
 formal objections to it. 

 Steve> If it really is open to all, I'll put in a policy bug shortly.

        I don't think that is ther case. 

 >> My first comment, though: I doubt that we want to specify the version
 >> of the FHS.  I realize that there's a little ambiguity if we don't,
 >> but A) I don't think we want to revise policy every time the FHS is
 >> updated, 

 Steve> I think one *does* want to update the policy document each
 Steve> time the FHS is updated.  Otherwise, the policy can be
 Steve> invalidated by external forces. For example, when FHS 2.0
 Steve> specified that /var/state be used in place of /var/lib,
 Steve> suddenly no packages would comply with policy!  At the very
 Steve> least, someone ought to audit the changes between FHS versions
 Steve> to ensure that Debian really can live with the new FHS.

        I would rather change the policy to specify we try to be
 compatible to the version of the FHS included in the policy package.

 Steve> As a practical matter, the Debian policy is updated *way* more
 Steve> frequently than the FHS has been, and I suspect that will
 Steve> continue to be the case.  So this shouldn't be a huge burden,
 Steve> should it?

        I do not think Debian policy should be automatically updated
 to a new version of the FHS. The newer versions may have things we
 can't live with. 
 There is no act of treachery or mean-ness of which a political party
 is not capable; for in politics there is no honour. Benjamin
 Disraeli, "Vivian Grey"
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: