Re: packages with really old standards version
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 06:27:40PM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > I file any bugs I detect, once I get lintian running on the archive, old
> > packages beware (-:
> >
> > A package of 2.x policy behaves in a way different than current packages.
> >
> > They lack a /usr/share/doc, their manpages are not in share either. They
> > may violate other things. Point is, these packages will be a source of bugs.
>
> Sure, but lacking /usr/share/doc is, aiui, a non-RC issue as it stands
> (since there seems to be some sort of deadlock in working out what to do
> about it)...
>...
In a message sent in this thread only a good hour before this mail you
said you want that RC are filed for packages lacking /usr/share/doc (and
all the /usr/doc problems and symlinks can go away as soon as all packages
have moved their documentation to /usr/share/doc):
<-- snip -->
...
severity); and I'd definitely encourage the lintian maintainer to file
serious bugs about automatically detect-able violations of any MUST
directives in current policy (no matter what standards-version the
packages claims to comply with).
...
<-- snip -->
A package that puts it's documentation in /usr/doc violates a "must" in
section 10.1.1. of the policy:
<-- snip -->
10.1.1. Linux File system Structure
-----------------------------------
The location of all installed files and directories must comply with
the Linux File system Hierarchy Standard (FHS). The latest version of
this document can be found alongside this manual or on
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/. Specific questions about following the
standard may be asked on `debian-devel', or referred to Daniel
Quinlan, the FHS coordinator, at <quinlan@pathname.com>.
<-- snip -->
> Cheers,
> aj
cu
Adrian
--
Nicht weil die Dinge schwierig sind wagen wir sie nicht,
sondern weil wir sie nicht wagen sind sie schwierig.
Reply to: