On 15 Aug 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Santiago> This has not happened in this case. We decided to switch
> Santiago> from FSSTND to FHS, which includes switching from /usr/doc
> Santiago> to /usr/share/doc, and nobody objected,
Hi,
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> On 10 Aug 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Hi,
>> >>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
Santiago> If we followed this rule of "only object in extreme circumstances",
Santiago> we could be drawing
On 6 Aug 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Remco" == Remco Blaakmeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Remco> Then, if this really good scheme is agreed upon, the whole
> Remco> transition can be done between the potato release and the
> Remco> release after potato.
>
> In my opinion (
On Tue, Aug 10, 1999 at 02:01:08PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Aug 1999, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> > [...] formal objections are only appropriate in extreme circumstances.
> 1. Someone propose to abandon /usr/share/doc in potato and go back to
> /usr/doc. Two advocates of using /usr/doc
On 10 Aug 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Santiago> If we followed this rule of "only object in extreme circumstances",
> Santiago> we could be drawing circles forever. See:
>
> On the contrary, if every one objected f
Mike Goldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Furthermore, it is clear that the proposal was not at all serious,
> but a measure intended only to buy time.
Excuse me? It was most definitely *both*! And moreover, to give us a
clean release of Potato, and to give us an entire release cycle to get
Wo
Hi,
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> If we followed this rule of "only object in extreme circumstances",
Santiago> we could be drawing circles forever. See:
On the contrary, if every one objected formally all the time
we shall never resolve anything.
On Mon, 9 Aug 1999, Anthony Towns wrote:
> [...] formal objections are only appropriate in extreme circumstances.
This is an interesting comment.
I think there are several kinds of policy proposals:
1. Those who add new rules in policy to be followed.
2. Those who modify already existing rules
Hi,
>>"Chris" == Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Secondly, I think that the policy should not hard code release
>> names
Chris> I would call this a serious flaw in policy then.
My opinion is a flaw in policy? ;-)
Chris> I think we NEED a way to say, "these are the rules
[not cc'ed to the bug report]
On Sun, Aug 08, 1999 at 05:04:01PM -0400, Mike Goldman wrote:
> Richard Braakman wrote:
> > Mike Goldman wrote:
> > > Therefore, I formally object to this proposal.
> > You have given reasons for not liking the proposal, but no reasons for
> > it being unviable. I th
Chris Waters wrote:
> > 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
>
> This proposal defers nothing. It merely mandates a *delay* for the
> transition. Granted, it
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Mike" == Mike Goldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Mike> Given then a choice between automatically moving all docs back
> Mike> to /usr/doc or moving all legacy packages to /usr/share/doc, I
> Mike> would choose the latter, since this is compliant with FHS
[a second followup to cover one point more accurately, and to add some
details to another]
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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
Hi,
>>"Mike" == Mike Goldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mike> Given then a choice between automatically moving all docs back
Mike> to /usr/doc or moving all legacy packages to /usr/share/doc, I
Mike> would choose the latter, since this is compliant with FHS which
Mike> is our eventual goal.
Richard Braakman wrote:
> Mike Goldman wrote:
> > Therefore, I formally object to this proposal.
>
> You have given reasons for not liking the proposal, but no reasons for
> it being unviable. I think a formal objection is far too strong.
I think it is both undesirable and unnecessary, neither b
Hi,
>>"Mike" == Mike Goldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mike> I happen to disagree very much with the symlink proposals I have thus
Mike> far seen, as well. While it may be convenient for users to access the
Mike> documentation as though it were in /usr/doc, when it had in fact moved,
Mike>
Mike Goldman wrote:
> Therefore, I formally object to this proposal.
You have given reasons for not liking the proposal, but no reasons for
it being unviable. I think a formal objection is far too strong.
Richard Braakman
I observe that several very large packages have already moved to
/usr/share/doc. Moving them back to /usr/doc will require not
inconsiderable time and inconvenience. This would be in itself not
cause for objection if it were a step forward. However, it is clearly
our goal eventually to have all
Hi,
>>"Chris" == Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 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 a
At 16:02 -0700 1999-08-04, Chris Waters wrote:
Unlike most other FHS-mandated changes, an inconsistency here will be
*highly* visible, and probably very annoying to our users.
Whatever, they can deal.
It's going to be a while before we can claim FHS compliance in any
case. We have a lot of c
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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
Which is a political issue. We're bad at
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, whic
Hi,
>>"Remco" == Remco Blaakmeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Remco> The advantage of this proposal is that it buys time. Time to
Remco> come up with a really good transition scheme.
I am not sure that merely postponing the transition is likely
to enable us to come to a conesnsus on a `
On 5 Aug 1999, Chris Waters wrote:
> Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I think there are several wrong assumptions here:
>
> Hmm, maybe so. Or at least arguable points. But these were all in
> the preamble, not in the proposal itself. The proposal was a pretty
> simple statement
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That you consider your proposal primary as an alternative to be
> considered by a committee that only steps in if the policy group
> fails is also something that worries me a lot.
Well, don't worry then, that's not primary, that's just a backup plan.
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 12:55:46PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> And hey, when it comes down to it, this is just a proposal. My
> *primary* goal is to give the tech committee something else to
> consider if Manoj *does* send his proposal to them! :-)
>
> I think that with the number of secon
On Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 03:54:49PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > Wusses. :-)
>
> Huh? What does that mean?
Hasn't anybody ever seen Beavis and Butt-head?
--
G. Branden Robinson |I have a truly elegant proof of the
Debian GNU/Linux |above, but it is too l
On Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 05:14:37PM +0200, J.H.M. Dassen Ray" wrote:
> > > Wusses. :-)
> >
> > Huh? What does that mean?
>
> "wuss" is US slang for "wimp" or perhaps "coward". What netgod probably
> means is that this proposal is basically a cop-out, postponing the work
> until after potato's re
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 04:02:14PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > PROPOSAL (0.9): delay the /usr/share/doc transition
> The problem with this is that there are more than 100 packages using
> /usr/share/doc already, and there likely will be more.
I've
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think there are several wrong assumptions here:
Hmm, maybe so. Or at least arguable points. But these were all in
the preamble, not in the proposal itself. The proposal was a pretty
simple statement. :-)
> 1. "Today is not long before a release".
On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> "wuss" is US slang for "wimp" or perhaps "coward". What netgod probably
> means is that this proposal is basically a cop-out, postponing the work
> until after potato's release. I agree with that, but the powers that be
> regrettably do not seem to
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Chris Waters wrote:
> Therefore, I propose that Packages intended for for the distributions
> code-named "Potato" (and "Slink") continue to use /usr/doc. This will
> ensure that Potato is consistent. Plus, this gives us an entire
> release cycle to find a smooth transition pa
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Chris Waters wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.0.1.0
>
> PROPOSAL (0.9): delay the /usr/share/doc transition
>
> ABSTRACT: If we start moving the contents of /usr/doc to
> /usr/share/doc at this point, not long before a release, we will
> either have to delay the r
On Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 15:54:49 +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > Wusses. :-)
>
> Huh? What does that mean?
"wuss" is US slang for "wimp" or perhaps "coward". What netgod probably
means is that this proposal is basically a cop-out, postponing the work
until after potato's release. I agree with t
>
> "Julian" == Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> /usr/doc whereever this document refers to + /usr/share/doc.
>
> Julian> Seconded.
>
> Wusses. :-)
Huh? What does that mean?
Julian
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 04:02:14PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.0.1.0
>
> PROPOSAL (0.9): delay the /usr/share/doc transition
The problem with this is that there are more than 100 packages using
/usr/share/doc already, and there likely will be more. For the ef
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 04:02:14PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > + For the release code-named "Potato", packages should
> > + continue to use /usr/doc instead of the FHS's
> > + /usr/share/doc, for consistency. For uploads
"Julian" == Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> /usr/doc whereever this document refers to + /usr/share/doc.
Julian> Seconded.
Wusses. :-)
netgod
Debianism [DEH-BEE-IN-ISIM] /n./ An open source (GPL'd)
religion founded on the beliefs of the GNU-GPL
> PROPOSAL (0.9): delay the /usr/share/doc transition
> + For the release code-named "Potato", packages should
> + continue to use /usr/doc instead of the FHS's
> + /usr/share/doc, for consistency. For uploads to
> + "Potato" (and the earlier
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 04:02:14PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> + For the release code-named "Potato", packages should
> + continue to use /usr/doc instead of the FHS's
> + /usr/share/doc, for consistency. For uploads to
> + "Potato" (and the e
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.0.1.0
PROPOSAL (0.9): delay the /usr/share/doc transition
ABSTRACT: If we start moving the contents of /usr/doc to
/usr/share/doc at this point, not long before a release, we will
either have to delay the release (in order to bring all packages up to
policy 3.0.x
41 matches
Mail list logo
