Re: Bug#208010: [PROPOSAL] init script LSB 1.3 compliance (revised)
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 00:58:32 +0200, Stefan Gybas <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> [Directly answering to -policy, this does not need to be archived in
> the BTS.]
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>> Tested patches against all init-script using packages to the BTS.
> So from now on, we'll only change Policy after all packages comply
> with the proposed changes?
Yes. This is how policy has always worked; too.
> We'll never make large progress if it's handled this way.
But we have managed to do so in the past, by providing a
transition plan. First, you recommend the change, and work on getting
packages changed over. Then you make the new way the default, but not
a must condition, deprecating the old one. And finally, you can
mandate the new way.
> And how do we implement incompatible changes?
Allow both, but not mandate either the old or the new
one. Then make the new one the default; and so on.
If the packages done the new way can't live with packages done
the old way, well, you need to arrange for a flag day, when all the
packages change, probably by creating a staging area.
> Implementing a proposed change first before modifying Policy makes
> sense if we need a special feature in a single package like dpkg or
> menu (update-menus) but not if a lot of packages should offer a new
> feature like in this case. Implementing status for init scripts is
> not difficult in most cases since "start-stop-daemon --test" already
> offers this feature. The move to /usr/share/doc or the addition of
> build dependencies were also specified in Policy before all packages
> had a patch in the BTS.
You need to get packages changed, which they can do in advance
of policy; policy can then be changed to reflect the new reality.
You can not use policy changes to beat people on the head with.
> Isn't this what Standards-Version: is for? Packages specify which
> version of the Debian Policy they comply with and at some point in
> time the RM defines the minimal Policy version for a release. The
> severity of bugs is raised if a package's standards version is too
Wrong. There is only one policy, the current one. The
standards version is to help the developer keep track of hwat
changes need to be made to make the package compliant -- you look at
the upgrade checklist since the version in the package,
> Making this change to Policy does not mean than all packages must
> change their init script immediately, or did I misunderstand
You have indeed misunderstood how policy process works, and
what the standards version means.
You tread upon my patience. William Shakespeare, "Henry IV"
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <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