Hi,
I have a couple of things to say about this proposal. I think
that we have a bad track record when it comes to merely deferring the
issue until a latter date (I point to the archive reorg issue, where
we were to have an unstable pool, a staging area, and a current
stable pool, which would periodically be frozen and released -- no
release critical bugs in teh stable pool).
Secondly, I think that the policy should not hard code release
names, we should just say that we are moving to the FHS, with a few
execptions, namely, the /usr/doc dir should not be moved yet (no
names). At a latter date, policy can be changed to reflect that the
move is kosher.
However, I think this is a step backwards, we still have time
to set up a transition, and I think this proposal is premature
(especially as people are talking about withdrawing formal objections
to the symlink proposal). If the objections are withdrawn, we shall
be once more in the running.
Finally, the tech ctte may come forth with a proposed
transition; the DPL has asked the ctte to consider this problem.
manoj
--
Ertz's Observation: Millions long for immortality who do not know
what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
