Re: /usr/doc issue
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:
Raul> (*) debian policy 3.0.0.0 was ratified (which specifies the use of FHS
Raul> in place of FSSTND) but it did not address how to manage the migration
Raul> between the two standards. The implication is that all packages which
Raul> have not yet made the migration are now non-compliant with policy.
Raul> This seems to me to be fundamentally wrong -- policy should never have
Raul> been ratified which says that every existing package violates policy.
Raul> Policy should typically represent the best of existing practice..
So how do we have major transitions like the one being
contemplated now? To wit: old policy said that packages follow the
FSSTND. At some point in the future, we are to follow the FHS. How
does one modify policy in such a way that would avoid your objection?
I thought that recognizing the fact that the transition takes
time, and deciding ot to call the bugs release critical, was a
reasonable way of doing it (make the changes, and apply a dollop of
common sense when it came to enforcement).
Indeed, if there are better ways of doing major changes when
every (or a majority of) packages shall be affected, this should go
into the strategy guide.
One could argue that if it is decided that every package needs
to change, then having the old packages be declared buggy is a fine
way to speed up and track the transition.
manoj
--
"Although plastic was brought into industrial use in 1909 by
L.H. Baekeland of Yonkers, it was not until after World War II that
the modern miracle substance was used in a wide variety of consumer
goods, among them speedboats, dentures and flamingos. Previously
flamingos were made of cement. Before that they were made by other
flamingos." William E. Geist, The New York Times
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Reply to: