On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 12:40:32PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 10:24:18AM +0200, era eriksson wrote:
> > So if a package maintainer fails to create symbolic links from
> > /usr/lib to /etc, is it a "should" or a "must" violation?
>
> That's not a policy violation at all. OTOH, if the program breaks because of
> it, normal bug severity rules apply.
>
> > Anyway, what are the criteria for conforming to "should consider"?
>
> That "there are several" files to be put in /etc/, and that one wishes to
> think about it.
>
> If it's two files, and no further increase in perspective, then it's
> probably not necessary. If there are five and more to come, then it's
> probably necessary.
The confusion here probably stems from the use of the word "should",
which has magic connotations in policy. I suggest rewriting it like
this ('should' changed to the synonymous 'ought'; typographical, so
I'll leave it to the discretion of the editors):
Any configuration files created or used by your package
must reside in <tt>/etc</tt>. If there are several you
ought to consider creating a subdirectory of <tt>/etc</tt>
named after your package.</p>
>
> > *** debian-policy-3.5.6.1.orig/policy.sgml Thu Mar 14 20:17:48 2002
> > ***************
> > *** 5823,5835 ****
> > <p>
> > Any configuration files created or used by your package
> > must reside in <tt>/etc</tt>. If there are several you
> > ! should consider creating a subdirectory of <tt>/etc</tt>
> > named after your package.</p>
> >
> > <p>
> > If your package creates or uses configuration files
> > outside of <tt>/etc</tt>, and it is not feasible to modify
> > ! the package to use the <tt>/etc</tt>, you should still put
> > the files in <tt>/etc</tt> and create symbolic links to
> > those files from the location that the package
> > requires.</p>
> > <p>
> > Any configuration files created or used by your package
> > must reside in <tt>/etc</tt>. If there are several you
> > ! should create a subdirectory of <tt>/etc</tt>
> > named after your package.</p>
> >
> > <p>
> > If your package creates or uses configuration files
> > outside of <tt>/etc</tt>, and it is not feasible to modify
> > ! the package to use the <tt>/etc</tt>, you must still put
> > the files in <tt>/etc</tt> and create symbolic links to
> > those files from the location that the package
> > requires.</p>
> The second change makes it consistent as far as the first clause is
> concerned, but then it also mandates the symlinks. This makes it confusing
> again. :)
How about this one?
If your package creates or uses configuration files
outside of <tt>/etc</tt>, and it is not feasible to modify
the package to use the <tt>/etc</tt>, you must still put
the files in <tt>/etc</tt>. You may need to create symbolic links to
those files from the location that the package
requires.</p>
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
`. `' | Imperial College,
`- -><- | London, UK
Attachment:
pgpB3os2xXQWH.pgp
Description: PGP signature