On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:56:24 +0200 (CEST), Santiago Vila
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> If we are going to extend the FHS we should modify our own policy at
> least. You need to make a policy proposal, get two seconds and no
> objections. For your convenience I'm reassigning the bug.
I think it is premature to tatify into policy an action that
has not been fully decided upon, and has not yet had all the kinks
ironed out yet.
While I understand the use cases presented for /run; I am not
yet convinced that the solutions are mature. We shoulkd first have a
working solution, and present a proposal based on the working set to
policy at that time.
Issues of concern: Do we have a consensus on a solution? is
this doable? How much impact would it have on compatibility? What is
the initial reaction to the proposal on the FHS lists?
Let us do this thing right, and not hurry it into
policy. Packages which are pushing the edge often lead policy; so
minor policy infractions do not count. (Policy is not a stick to
beat the maintainers of innovative packages with, you know)
manoj
--
If all the Chinese simultaneously jumped into the Pacific off a 10
foot platform erected 10 feet off their coast, it would cause a tidal
wave that would destroy everything in this country west of Nebraska.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
