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

Bug#562863: marked as done (Extend description of filesystem namespace clashes)

Your message dated Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:44:51 -0700
with message-id <87o9rlx51o.fsf@iris.silentflame.com>
and subject line Closing inactive Policy bugs
has caused the Debian Bug report #562863,
regarding Extend description of filesystem namespace clashes
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
562863: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=562863
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.3.0

In the first paragraph in §10.1 (Binaries), there's a description of
when is and is not appropriate to have a filename clash for binaries,
and what to do if such situation arises.

I think this needs to be extended and generalized to include several
other cases, maybe refactoring the information into other sections and
making this one a reference to them. The points I think need mentioning
are:

 * This should apply to any public interfaces, not just binaries, as
   similar problemes arise with incompatible or completely distinct
   functionality being exposed through the same pathname. Those would
   include among others: header files, shared/static libraries,
   plugins, interpreter modules, etc.

 * Make explicit it's not acceptable to move a conflicting binary into
   another directory in the PATH, as that does not actually solve the
   filename clash, it just shadows it. (This might already be implied
   by the fact that it talks about filenames instead of pathnames, but
   making it more clear seems important to me.)

 * It's not acceptable to use Replaces or diversions either to get out
   of such situation. I guess this one is obvious, but I think it's
   worth including even if just in passing in a parenthetical like the
   references to alternatives and Conflicts in §10.1.

If there's agreement on this, I might try to provide some wording at
some point if no one else has done that already by then.

regards,
guillem

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
control: user debian-policy@packages.debian.org
control: usertag -1 +obsolete
control: tag -1 +wontfix

Russ Allbery and I did a round of in-person bug triage at DebConf17 and
we are closing this bug as inactive.

The reasons for closing fall into the following categories, from most
frequent to least frequent:

- issue is appropriate for Policy, there is a consensus on how to fix
  the problem, but preparing the patch is very time-consuming and no-one
  has volunteered to do it, and we do not judge the issue to be
  important enough to keep an open bug around;

- issue is appropriate for Policy but there does not yet exist a
  consensus on what should change, and no recent discussion.  A fresh
  discussion might allow us to reach consensus, and the messages in the
  old bug are unlikely to help very much; or

- issue is not appropriate for Policy.

If you feel this bug is still relevant and want to restart the
discussion, you can re-open the bug.  However, please consider instead
opening a new bug with a message that summarises and condenses the
previous discussion, updates the report for the current state of Debian,
and makes clear exactly what you think should change.

A lot of these old bugs have long side tangents and numerous messages,
and that old discussion is not necessarily helpful for figuring out what
Debian Policy should say today.

-- 
Sean Whitton

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: