Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I voted on the same day as the others, but only Raul seems to
> have seen it ;-(
I saw it and corrected myself iirc.. you're not forgotten :)
Wichert.
--
==
This combination
Dale Scheetz wrote:
> It was my understanding that, like the man and info transitions, these
> problems are resolved by giving the tools the knowledge of the dual
> locations. Our current binary dependencie scheme is sufficient to deal
> with "incremental upgrades". Those packages that use the new
"Joseph" == Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joseph> Apache defaults to having /doc readable by only localhost, but
Actually its still world-browsable, since thats easiest (and policy
implies it). There are open bugs against this though.
netgod
i'm trying to convi
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999 at 12:17:35AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > It was my understanding that this situation could be resolved in the same
> > fashion that the man and info transitions were. By making the docs viewing
> > programs aware of both the old and new locations, and back porting them
> >
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999 at 12:17:35AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> AFAIK, it's just not possible to make Apache (and other web browsers)
> make both /usr/doc and /usr/share/doc accessible at the one
> http://localhost/doc URL.
With apache it's trivial. With less fully featured web servers
(maybe bo
Hi,
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 08:12:20AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
>> > It was my understanding that this situation could be resolved in the same
>> > fashion that the man and info tr
On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 08:12:20AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > It was my understanding that this situation could be resolved in the same
> > fashion that the man and info transitions were. By making the docs viewing
> > programs aware of both the old a
On Sep 02, Anthony Towns wrote:
> AFAIK, it's just not possible to make Apache (and other web browsers)
> make both /usr/doc and /usr/share/doc accessible at the one
> http://localhost/doc URL.
Yes, it is, using mod_rewrite. Something like:
RewriteEngine on
RewriteCond /usr/doc/$1 -F
RewriteRul
Hi,
>>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dale> I would appreciate some feedback from the other members of the technical
Dale> committee, as I haven't seen a vote from any of the remaining members.
Dale> Guy, Klee, Ian, can you give some indication of whether the current
ballot
Hi,
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 08:12:20AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
>> It was my understanding that this situation could be resolved in the same
>> fashion that the man and info transitions were. By making the docs viewing
>> programs aware of both
Hi,
>>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dale> It was my understanding that this situation could be resolved in the same
Dale> fashion that the man and info transitions were. By making the docs
viewing
Dale> programs aware of both the old and new locations, and back porting the
Hi,
>>"Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Wichert> Mkay. This means that right now only you and Dale voted,
Wichert> right? How long has the vote been in progress?
I voted on the same day as the others, but only Raul seems to
have seen it ;-(
manoj
--
I
On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
> Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > As the rest of the committee seemed to take your proposal as being "not to
> > the point" I submit that I'm not the one who "don't get it".
> >
> > If it isn't "maintain the old location during the transition" then please
> > inform
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 08:12:20AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> It was my understanding that this situation could be resolved in the same
> fashion that the man and info transitions were. By making the docs viewing
> programs aware of both the old and new locations, and back porting them
> into sli
On 1 Sep 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Dale> On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> >> Nope, you don't get it.
>
> How to win friends and influence people ;-)
>
> Dale> As the rest of the committee seemed to take yo
Previously Raul Miller wrote:
> The current technical committee vote will be over next Sunday, or earlier
> if our other three members (Ian, Guy, Klee) vote before then.
Euh, you, Dale and Manoj I meant. Time to sleep I guess..
Wichert.
--
===
Previously Raul Miller wrote:
> (1) The technical committee should have been asked to approve the the
> original 3.0.0.0 policy change. Looking at the constitution, and at
> our current policy, everything which would result in a new major policy
> version number ought to be approved by the technic
Hi,
>>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dale> On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
>> Nope, you don't get it.
How to win friends and influence people ;-)
Dale> As the rest of the committee seemed to take your proposal as
Dale> being "not to the point" I submit that
Dale Scheetz wrote:
> As the rest of the committee seemed to take your proposal as being "not to
> the point" I submit that I'm not the one who "don't get it".
>
> If it isn't "maintain the old location during the transition" then please
> inform my ignorant self, as I may need to change my vote.
On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
> Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > And rightly so ;-) The committee spent some time debating just exactly
> > what the issue really was. I resolved it to be "least surprise" for users
> > by retaining /usr/doc during the transition.
>
> Nope, you don't get it.
As the
On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> So encourage the other committee members to cast their votes in the
> current ballet before this committee, so we can get on with our lives.
Eh? Come again? You think any of us have lives? :)
Adam
Dale Scheetz wrote:
> And rightly so ;-) The committee spent some time debating just exactly
> what the issue really was. I resolved it to be "least surprise" for users
> by retaining /usr/doc during the transition.
Nope, you don't get it.
--
see shy jo
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 03:44:07PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Raul Miller wrote:
> > First off, I'm not sure it's a good idea for policy to be a rapidly
> > changing entity.
>
> It's not a good idea at all, but as Manoj pointed out it's now changing
> rapidly.
>
> > Debian produc
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 10:17:28AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> There is currently a vote underway in the technical committee. Raul and
> myself have voted, and are waiting for the others on the committee to
> vote.
As has Manoj.
FYI,
--
Raul
On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Johnie Ingram wrote:
>
> "Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Raul> I guess this means that you didn't read
> Raul>
> http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-devel-announce-9908/msg5.html?
>
> I read it, and I've waited over 20 days, but we're no c
Previously Raul Miller wrote:
> First off, I'm not sure it's a good idea for policy to be a rapidly
> changing entity.
It's not a good idea at all, but as Manoj pointed out it's now changing
rapidly.
> Debian produces packages -- policy is a means to that end.
No, policy is a means of doing qual
Johnie Ingram wrote:
> The problem is (1) that Policy has made a big change without any kind
> of transition plan, obsoleting all of potato and making it
> incompatible with slink in a noticable way. (Bad for partial
> upgrades.)
>
> The problem is (2) that the issue is no longer under democratic
"Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joey> A hint: nobody ever claimed building packages that used
Joey> /usr/share/doc would be a problem. In fact, as long ago as 2
Joey> years, people were confident debhelper would handle that part of
Joey> the transition very easily. That's not the
"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> I guess this means that you didn't read
Raul>
http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-devel-announce-9908/msg5.html?
I read it, and I've waited over 20 days, but we're no closer to a
solution. Folling the new Policy would at least
Johnie Ingram wrote:
> And I choose not to wait for him, a debhelper thats compliant can be
> tested at:
>
> http://netgod.net/x/debhelper_2.0.21-0.0_all.deb
>
> Only problem found so far is that using it breaks the autobuild
> machines using the /usr/doc debhelper. But if 70% of package
On Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 11:54:52PM -0400, Johnie Ingram wrote:
> And I choose not to wait for him, a debhelper thats compliant can be
> tested at:
>
> http://netgod.net/x/debhelper_2.0.21-0.0_all.deb
>
> Only problem found so far is that using it breaks the autobuild
> machines using the
"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcus> Joey Hess did chose not to implement this change yet as he
Marcus> waited for a consensus on the discussion that started about
Marcus> this topic. This rules out 70% of our packages, which are
Marcus> based on debhelper (figure may
On Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 02:43:32PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> Basically, yes. But, wishes are intangible... That there are something
> like 2000 packages out there which haven't implemented /usr/share/doc/
> should have been sufficient clue.
Joey Hess did chose not to implement this change yet
On Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 07:26:47PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> I've been gone a week; this mail is a kind of summary reply, where I
> pull together a number of threads.
Often, those are the best kinds of replies.
On Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 12:50:57PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > > That wo
I've been gone a week; this mail is a kind of summary reply, where I
pull together a number of threads.
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 12:50:57PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > That would be awful. Having to wait while something is rubberstamped,
> > just to get around an issue
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> Technical policy is supposed to be ratified by the technical committee.
Raul> [The committee hadn't been doing its job, but that doesn't free any of
Raul> us from the responsibility for failures in technical policy.]
If that
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> Yes. What you're thinking is pretty close to what I'm thinking.
Hmm. In that case, I'd prefer a paraphrase of your one
sentence description -- "policy should not make changes that
contradict currrent policy withiout allowin
On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 12:00:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 3) Once a reasonable number (to be decided, reasonable could also
> be nearly all) have moved away from the legal but deprecated
> old AA method to the new BB method, policy can be changed to
> say BB i
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
> >>"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:
>
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
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
Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Fourth, Raul also points out that debian-policy isn't a constitutional
> > body, it can only act under the auspices of the technical committee. That
> > is, just because we reach a consensus on -policy how to deal with an
> > issue, we can't suddenly declare 1000s of packag
On Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 12:50:57PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> That would be awful. Having to wait while something is rubberstamped,
> just to get around an issue of protocol -- that just adds a useless
> layer to something that is already ponderous. This is a volunteer
> project, not a phon
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Fourth, Raul also points out that debian-policy isn't a constitutional
> body, it can only act under the auspices of the technical committee. That
> is, just because we reach a consensus on -policy how to deal with an
> issue, we can't suddenly declare 1000s of packages [2] b
On Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 03:01:58AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > "Documentation must be accessible from /usr/doc/.
> > In order to ease the transition to FHS, packages should
> > put documentation in /usr/share/doc/, and install a
> > symlink from /usr/doc/ -> /usr/share/doc/. D
Anthony Towns writes:
> I'm probably making to grandiose a claim here, but I think this is the
> proper way of handling the difference of opinion between Chris (and kin)
> and Manoj (and kith) about mentioning releases by names and doing things
> all at once and such.
I don't think that the diff
Hello world,
By chance I discovered Klee's debian-ctte list archive on master [0]. By
luck, it was world readable so I snarfed a copy. I'm shocked and amazed
to find that the -ctte actually has done stuff. And pleased.
So first, my congratulations to Raul on his acclamation as techinical
committe
61 matches
Mail list logo
