Re: /usr/doc issue
On Sat, 21 Aug 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
> "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..
>
> On Thu, Aug 19, 1999 at 01:35:38AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > 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'm going to keep this brief -- I've just got my system back up after
> a major power outage, and there are a number of emergencies I still
> have to deal with.]
>
> Why not design the transition so that existing (FSSTND) packages can be
> compliant with policy, but so that new packages can also comply with
> FHS?
If, "also" means that they "support" (through symlinks) the old locations,
then I agree. This is the compromize proposal I was actually expecting
from Ian ;-)
>
> I'm aware that there's a dpkg bug which causes a problem with the
> obvious solution for /usr/doc/, but that seems like not a good reason
> to jump in with policy changes which declare every package buggy.
>
Agreed. But also, we must choose proposals that provide work-arounds.
> Debian developers are pretty good about heading towards agreed on
> goals, by the way... [Though with as many packages as we have change
> cannot be fast.]
>
I was going to disagree, until the brackets at the end ;-)
Our quest it to resolve the problem of transitioning from FSSTD to FHS so
as not to surprise or confuse the user with mixed locations for docs as
the transition occurs. The proposal only presented the /usr/doc transition
as being a problem.
I was hoping for a clear set of options to choose from by now, so here is
my take on our choices:
1. Accept symlink farm proposal <have no idea whose idea this was>
2. Freeze current situation:
A. All other FHS specifications are policy with the exception
of moving /usr/doc to /<where did we want to put it again?>/.
B. Packages that have already moved to the new location, may remain
there. Only if a link to /usr/doc is provide will these packages
meet Policy.
C. All other FHS compliance continues at current pace, according to
the dictates of Policy.
3. Roll back to FSSTD for /usr/doc ONLY!
Q? Pretty self explanitory...
4. Roll back to FSSTD for everything and give the complete problem some
more study, hopfully yielding a process for transition.
I think this is Ian's proposal, but it got _more_ complex rather than
less, and I'm not sure I understand all the "proceedural" aspects of
his latest proposal.
OK, thats it!
Does anyone see any reasonable proposal that I have missed?
Do we need to discuss the relative merits of any of these?
Does everyone see anything on the list too stupid to vote for?
If you answer NO to all of the above:
Can we take a "formal" vote on these options and choose one?
(Please say YES to this one. I didn't mean to set a trend ;-)
Waiting is,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- See www.linuxpress.com for more details _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Reply to: