On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 08:01:40AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Sombody wrote this, but I don't recall who:
> > /usr/doc/pkg-doc/copyright = /usr/doc/pkg/copyright; so either pkg-doc
> > doesn't have a copyright if pkg isn't installed, or pkg-doc and pkg have
> > the same file included in both pac
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Suppose policy statres all packages must do AA. We decide that
> in the long run, all packlages must do, instead, BB.
> 1) The policy should not just be changed to say BB instead of AA,
>since that would make all previously conf
On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 07:59:50PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Whereas you and Raul seem to suggest (please correct me if I am wrong):
>
> 1. Make informal decision about something OR make decision and change policy
> to allow old and new way.
> 2. Wait until enough packages follow the new wa
On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 02:11:21PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> I hope you don't mean that you think the current /usr/doc ->
> /usr/share/doc breakage is appropriate or necessary.
I consider this discussion decoupled from this particular issue. (My opinion
about the transition of /usr/doc -> /us
On Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 01:57:51AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> > I don't see why the second shall be better than the first.
>
> In this example, specifically saying "Either could be used" warns tool
> writers that they shouldn't expect to be able to deal with the whole
> Debian archive if the
On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 07:44:27PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> However, I see there are two places in the policy manual which back up my
> point. Both are in section 2.4.1:
>
> "When the standards change in a way that
> requires every package to change the major number will be changed."
>
>
On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 12:09:27PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> Then again, if you want to change the source format, and policy is
> ratified which results in source format being unusable during some
> transition period, that's wrong.
Of course this is wrong. The question is under which circumst
On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 12:00:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[much deleted]
> I see. Is the above a reasonable facsimile of what you are
> talking about?
Yes. What you're thinking is pretty close to what I'm thinking.
[Most of the text of your letter is the sort of stuff that I thi
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> And maybe I don't. Perhaps you have a specific example in mind?
I am still trying to clarify what would be the accepted means
of changing the policy from initially saying one thing (/usr/doc) and
then, at a later date, sayi
On Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 01:57:51AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Consider something like: ``Your package has /usr/doc/copyright/package
> instead of /usr/doc/package/copyright''. That almost certainly doesn't
> cause a problem with the package itself. And the copyright is included,
> and it doesn't
On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 04:52:59PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> I think that does not make sense at all.
>
> Current practice is a good guidance for the policy process, but being
> strictly bound to it renders the policy group useless because we had
> no chance to make real, innovative progress
On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 04:52:59PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 06:08:54PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Let me put it yet another way. We should be willing to add a lintian
> > check for any additions to policy, and file severity: normal bug reports
> > for every pack
On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 06:08:54PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Let me put it yet another way. We should be willing to add a lintian
> check for any additions to policy, and file severity: normal bug reports
> for every package in violation. (Which isn't to say we actually *should*,
> but we shoul
On 28 Aug 1999, Chris Waters wrote:
> Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I would suggest what several packages already do: install the docs in
> > /usr/doc/pkg and have /usr/doc/pkg-doc as a symlink to /usr/doc/pkg.
>
> That only works if the pkg-doc package depends on pkg, which is
> >>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Raul> (*) Policy is *supposed* to be a formulation of existing
> Raul> practice. If everybody agrees, the technical committee doesn't
> Raul> need to get involved.
On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 02:28:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
In my opinion, yes. All debian packages with executables should have
as many man pages as there are executables. That's policy. In my opinion,
all file formats introduced by a package should have a man page in
section 5 which completely describes the format.
Write the man page with a description
On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 02:22:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
> Anthony> Then those packages are welcome to stay in /usr/doc, if
> Anthony> complying with the transition strategy irks the maintainer
> Anthony> too much. When policy changes, they'
Hi,
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> Then those packages are welcome to stay in /usr/doc, if
Anthony> complying with the transition strategy irks the maintainer
Anthony> too much. When policy changes, they'll just have to be
Anthony> prepared to move more or less immediately, wit
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> (*) Policy is *supposed* to be a formulation of existing practice.
Raul> If everybody agrees, the technical committee doesn't need to get
Raul> involved.
How can evolutionalry changes be then ratified into policy? I
unders
> On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 07:00:55AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > > Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > I would suggest what several packages already do: install the docs in
> > > > /usr/doc/pkg and have /usr/doc/pkg-doc as a symlink to /usr/doc/pkg.
> > > That only works if the pk
On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 07:00:55AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I would suggest what several packages already do: install the docs in
> > > /usr/doc/pkg and have /usr/doc/pkg-doc as a symlink to /usr/doc/pkg.
> > That only works if the pkg-doc pack
> Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I would suggest what several packages already do: install the docs in
> > /usr/doc/pkg and have /usr/doc/pkg-doc as a symlink to /usr/doc/pkg.
>
> That only works if the pkg-doc package depends on pkg, which isn't
> alway necessary or desirable.
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 03:01:58AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > It's a lot of
> > overhead for packages with close-to-nothing in /usr(/share)?/doc.
> Then those packages are welcome to stay in /usr/doc, if complying with the
> transition strategy irks the maintainer too
Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would suggest what several packages already do: install the docs in
> /usr/doc/pkg and have /usr/doc/pkg-doc as a symlink to /usr/doc/pkg.
That only works if the pkg-doc package depends on pkg, which isn't
alway necessary or desirable.
--
Chris Water
> As a user I would like it if Debian had a policy on the location of the
> 'Additional documentation' that is supplied in the -doc packages as
> per Section 6.3 of policy-manual 3.0.0.0. Many -doc packages place the
> actual documentation in the base package's /usr/{share/}doc/
> directory while
25 matches
Mail list logo
