> I'm almost at the point that I'm ready to agree with the small and growing
> group of people who are saying screw the transition---the only thing it
> really hurts is /usr/doc/pac and being a creature of habit that
> annoys me. But I'd deal with it.
I think this is the whole problem with this
> > I'd say that 95% of packages use debhelper or debmake.
> 75%. http://kitenet.net/programs/debhelper/stats/
> (A little out of date, hasn't been updated in a month, but it will soon..)
It should be higher... the more packages uses debstd/debhelper, the less
lines of code that need maintenainc
Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can we have a proposal to ammend policy to not use /usr/share/doc until
> we have a working transition mechanism in place?
Yes, thank you, that is exactly what I'm planning to propose. I'm
just trying to clear up a couple of last-minute details.
Expe
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Move to usr/share/doc in individual packages. Do nothing else. No symlinks,
> no messing with dpkg, no scripts.
A number of people have objected to that proposal already! Several
users have stated that they *hate* the idea. If we care about our
use
On Sun, Aug 01, 1999 at 06:29:29PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Whatever you do, please make sure that this proposal is flexible enough to
> catch individual Debian architectures, not only Hurd vs. Linux.
Please help in this. You know the problems better than I - what problems
there are that
On Sat, Jul 31, 1999 at 10:24:47PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > on the grounds that
> > it doesn't allow me to correctly specify glibc's source depends.
> > I need them conditional on DEB_HOST_GNU_SYSTEM, e.g. for Linux-based
> > GNU systems I need to depend on kernel-headers-, for
> > HURD-based
On Sat, Jul 31, 1999 at 01:50:39AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > So all new packages will have to depend on this particular version of
> > base-files or newer, or there is still no guarantee that the link gets
> > removed.
>
> Erm, no, they don't need to declare any such dependency -- the packag
On Sun, Aug 01, 1999 at 02:05:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> > DELAYED DO-NOTHING (the Bad One)
>
> Honestly, I don't even think this is that bad.
>
> Anyway, I think the more important part of this discussion, or at
> least the more controversial part, is whether symlinks/cronjobs/hacking
On Sun, Aug 01, 1999 at 09:32:25AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> > All arguments aside, we're running out of options (especially since there
> > are a dozen proposals and everyone seems to be formally objecting to every
> > proposal that isn't theirs ...)
>
> Can we have a proposal to ammend polic
On Sun, Aug 01, 1999 at 01:18:24AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Otherwise I don't see that we have options here. There is no technical
> reason we can't just forget the transition. The tools can be modified to
> look for docs in both places and (I guess?) already have been in some
> cases. If a
On Sat, Jul 31, 1999 at 10:16:40PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Yes, but all these packages were foolishly changed before debian as a whole
> decided what to do.
Not true. Policy 3 mandates /usr/share/doc. My packages were not
changed before Policy 3 was uploaded.
> There is no reason they cannot
On Mon, Jul 26, 1999 at 10:54:38AM +0200, Roman Hodek wrote:
> I see your point, and I can live with the Arch- variants if a majority
> wants them.
The majority? There have been, what, probably less than ten people
involved in this discussion. I don't think a majority vote among them
would be of
On Sat, Jul 31, 1999 at 09:32:33PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Maybe we should require that a formal objection should need 5
> > seconds, and a formal objection automatically sends the proposal to
> > the tech ctte for resolution? The ctte could always refuse to take
> > action, but they
On Sat, Jul 31, 1999 at 10:32:51PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Modify dpkg-buildpackage to handle FHS move (#41729)
> * Proposed by Julian Gilbey.
> * Another /usr/share/doc transition proposal. This one is to make
> dpkg-buildpackage move /usr/doc to /usr/share/doc when a package
> is bu
> Hi,
> >>"Julian" == Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> What exactly is required to "resurrect" a proposal? Is it required to wait
> >> some amount of time since it was rejected?
>
> Julian> I don't know. Sufficient interest might be sufficient, but
> Julian> we should
> Juli
On Sat, Jul 31, 1999 at 09:55:31PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Joseph Carter wrote:
> > I think the html changelog SHOULD be there since that is its native form.
> > lynx can be guaranteed to make a mess of anything more complex than a
> > simple HTML file and as a result the original HTML should be
At 22:16 -0700 1999-07-31, Joey Hess wrote:
__> ls -asCF /usr/share/doc/
total 18
1 ./ 1 doc-base/ 1 libc6/ 1 procmail/
2 ../ 1 dpkg-ftp/ 1 libc6-dev/ 1 xboard/
1 HTML/ 1 fdflush/ 1 libc6-pic/
1 base-files/
Joel Klecker wrote:
> I just realized I have to object to this proposal
I hope this isn't another case of a formal objection without even talking it
over first?
> on the grounds that
> it doesn't allow me to correctly specify glibc's source depends.
> I need them conditional on DEB_HOST_GNU_SYST
Here's what's been happening on debian-policy this week.
This is a two week summary. Note that policy 3.0.1.0 has been
released. The changes are minor.
Note: for details of the policy process, see
http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/policy/ch3.html. Also, this summary is
available on the web at http:
Stefan Gybas wrote:
> I would also prefer such a scheme. What about colons in package names?
> I know that they are currently not allowed but is there a technical
> reason not to allow them? According to footnote 14 in the packaging
> manual, colons used to be legal. Was this changed when epochs we
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Jason> Well, say we provide a /usr/share/doc -> /usr/doc symlink -
> Jason> couldn't those people who want to do this simply mv /usr/doc
> Jason> to /usr/share and put the symlink in as /usr/doc ? Presto
> Jason> chango they get what they want, we get what we want :>
>
Peter Makholm wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 02:35:04PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > Data section (#38902)
> > > * Proposed on 3 Jun 1999 by Darren O. Benham; seconded by Peter S
> > > Galbraith, Peter Makholm and Peter Makholm.
>
> I hate to say this but I think my involvment in thi
Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> I'd say that 95% of packages use debhelper or debmake.
75%. http://kitenet.net/programs/debhelper/stats/
(A little out of date, hasn't been updated in a month, but it will soon..)
--
see shy jo
Santiago Vila wrote:
> I would like you to elaborate on that. I think it makes sense that the
> more difficult the migration process is, the longer it will take, and your
> proposal complicate things in a considerable degree.
That's simply not so. Whatever we eventually decide on, 60% of the packa
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hmm. Could you set up the symlink, install a package that
> installs stuff in /usr/doc; install a package that installs stuff in
> /usr/share/doc/; purge both packages. If these work, then we just
> have to worry about the mechanism that does the moving -- can o
Joseph Carter wrote:
> I think the html changelog SHOULD be there since that is its native form.
> lynx can be guaranteed to make a mess of anything more complex than a
> simple HTML file and as a result the original HTML should be provided in
> those cases. Since it's hard to deal with ifs like t
Joseph Carter wrote:
> I propose that we create a safe migration path between /var/spool/mail and
> /var/mail.
Seconded. Thanks for an excellent migration path.
--
see shy jo
I just realized I have to object to this proposal on the grounds that
it doesn't allow me to correctly specify glibc's source depends.
I need them conditional on DEB_HOST_GNU_SYSTEM, e.g. for Linux-based
GNU systems I need to depend on kernel-headers-, for
HURD-based GNU systems I need hurd-dev
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Maybe we should require that a formal objection should need 5
> seconds, and a formal objection automatically sends the proposal to
> the tech ctte for resolution? The ctte could always refuse to take
> action, but they also choose to refute the objection, and r
On Sat, Jul 31, 1999 at 06:59:11PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> At worst, we'll be in this same position at the *beginning* of a
> release cycle, and that alone has one advantage: it increases the
> *chance* that we can get a sweeping change done before the next
> release.
*shrug*. It's still only
Anthony Towns writes:
> [1 ]
> On Sat, Jul 31, 1999 at 12:40:39AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > * Stick with /usr/doc until potato is released, then begin a massive
> > migration, which may or may not involve symlinks.
> > - we can't pretend FHS compliance (but we couldn't anyway).
> >
31 matches
Mail list logo
