block 340609 by 230217 block 340608 by 230217 block 311524 by 230217 block 315080 by 230217 block 336650 by 230217 thanks Hi, On Wednesday 21 December 2005 19:05, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 13:13 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote: > [...] > > > Anyway, shall I file a bug against policy now, to include FHS 2.3 instead > > of 2.1 ? I think I should. Otherwise it would look to me like the release > > team can simply overwrite policy decissions. > > Three such bugs already exist, one with quite a lot of discussion on the > issue. These are merged and the most relevant one today is #230217, see http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=230217 The bug was opened two years ago, while the last post is four month old. Besides some, IMHO, smaller, problems, nobody objected and quite a few people seconded upgrading policy to FHS 2.3 - and _today_ we still have some time left til etch. So how about upgrading the severity or take some other measures (usertags for example), so that this bug will not be forgetten but fixed in time ? BTW, the fai maintainer said he will wait til this has been resolved before fixing #340609, #340608, #311524, #315080, #336650. (Which are serious (or should be) as they are against policy.) regards, Holger
Attachment:
pgpEekrPPPG6D.pgp
Description: PGP signature