Bug#98291: being truthful about the FHS and us
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 08:06:22AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 12:12:30PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > As for (b), no, we're aiming for compatibility! Grrr! :-)
> No, I mean we're aiming to move all the docs to /usr/share/doc for woody
> anyway; so this issue is just about done with anyway.
Exactly! That's why policy should mandate compatibility.
> (Well, except that the existance of the symlinks probably break
> compliance with the FHS;
Yes, but it doesn't break compatibility. The whole point of FHS
compatibility is for systems in transition, which is what we are. And
woody is probably going to be FHS-compatible, so why not say so?
Policy is about more than trying to make sure that several thousand
packages suddenly have RC bugs they didn't have yesterday. ( :-) )
It's _supposed_ to document what we do, and best practices and all.
Right now, today, FHS-compatibility is what we do, what we want to do,
and our best practice. Packages that aren't even compatible (let
alone compliant) should almost certainly have RC bugs filed against
them. Fortunately, that's probably less than fifty packages, maybe
even as low as none.
cheers
--
Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra- osis is too long
xtifr@debian.org | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single
or xtifr@speakeasy.net | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
Reply to: