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

Re: Finishing the FHS transition

On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 10:57:37AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Standards-Version < 3 :
> a not FHS compliant package is at most a "normal" bug
> Standards-Version >= 3:
> a not FHS compliant package is at most a "serious" bug

This is not correct. You can't change the severity of a bug by twiddling
a field with a purely indicative use.

> > We have many packages with old Standards-Versions which actually
> > comply with newer standards and *are* FHS compatible, and we have
> > packages with newer Standards-Versions that are NOT FHS compatible.
> Please file RC bug on packages with Standards-Version >= 3 that are not
> FHS compatible.

No. Don't. I'll just downgrade them as soon as I see them, so you'll
be just wasting your own time and mine. Policy is simply wrong in using
the word "must" in regards to the "Standards-Version" field.

And no, this isn't an opportunity for discussion. Everything there is
to be said on this matter has been said, repeatedly. Check the -policy
archives if you really must.

Standards-Versions aren't release critical. You can put it as
"Standards-Version: 526." if you want. And no matter what
Standards-Version you have, you still have to follow the FHS, you have
to use /usr/share/doc, and if you specify build-dependencies they have
to be correct.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
  do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
                      -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)

Attachment: pgpEE0yI_Rgq4.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: