Re: Debian and FHS
>>"Steve" == Steve Robbins <email@example.com> 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
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
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 <firstname.lastname@example.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