On Sep 06, Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> wrote: > If you're unable to persuade upstream to change their implementation, and > you're unwilling to diverge from upstream to ensure the package complies > with Debian policy, your other option is to orphan the package and let I am willing to diverge from upstream and I have been doing it in varying degrees for the whole like of the package, what I am unwilling to do is to adopt crazy solutions which are broken, unmaintenable and/or useless anyway in the long end.
> It's normal that in the process of drafting a standard, people will take > into account the prevailing real-world practices, to ensure that the > standard will be useful. Once something *is a standard*, you don't > arbitrarily change what you're doing and claim that it still complies with > the standard because "the standard follows what Red Hat does". I am not claiming that this complies with the standard, just that it does not matter because if there is a wide consensus (which does not need to be unanimous) about this then eventually the standard will be updated to reflect it. Anyway, FHS also has examples of things changed long after they were adopted by everybody, like /var/spool/mail/ vs. /var/mail/. > The FHS as part of Debian Policy is a promise to our users that they can > rely on the system working a certain way. It's not ok for *any* upstream to > force us to break that promise, no matter how important they think they are. While it is not OK, it is also hard to avoid. > The last time you made this claim, I asked Scott about it and he denied > that this was his position. Given that there has quite specifically been And I am pretty much sure that he told me otherwise, but I do not think this is very important now: if Ubuntu really has a policy of supporting a standalone /usr then it's about time that the Ubuntu developers join the relevant discussions on IRC and/or the linux-hotplug mailing list and show that Debian is not alone. -- ciao, Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
