On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> Do we really have to discuss this again? We asked the technical
> committee some time ago to decide how to smoothly migrate from
> /usr/doc to /usr/share/doc and the decision was that every package has
> to provide /usr/doc/ in potato (either as a dir
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Policy is a desired state of package, it doesn't dictate a transition
> period.
Right, which is why I've suggested creating a Strategy document or
something similar. It would help avoid this sort of confusion.
--
Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
Previously Anand Kumria wrote:
> That is not what policy 6.4 says.
Policy is a desired state of package, it doesn't dictate a transition
period. In this case the technical committee did give us a detailed
transition process.
Wichert.
--
___
On Jan 09, Anand Kumria wrote:
> Here is an additional question: what standards release(s) will be
> allowed in potato?
My understanding is that >= 2.5.0.0 is acceptable for potato. But I
don't think that's official or set in stone.
On the /usr/share/doc thing... if the maintainer has made subst
On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Jan 2000, Anand Kumria wrote:
>
> > > Who is expecting 0 here? We expect this for Debian 2.3, but not
> > > for potato. In potato we expect, that every documentation is
> > > available as /usr/doc/ (documentation either placed there
> > >
On Sun, 09 Jan 2000, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > Who is expecting 0 here? We expect this for Debian 2.3, but not
> > for potato. In potato we expect, that every documentation is
> > available as /usr/doc/ (documentation either placed there
> > or accessible via a symlink to /usr/share/doc/).
> No,
On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Anand Kumria wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Jan 2000, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
>
> Well it wouldn't have taken you much time[1], I did check and 13 out
> of 159 packages have symlinks in /usr/share/doc/package pointing to
> /usr/doc. From what I remember that was the inital way to doing
>
On Sat, 8 Jan 2000, Aaron Van Couwenberghe wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 09, 2000 at 07:58:39AM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > Okay, I'll email a few people, who are maintaining a lot of those
> > package, asking/informing them about the problem.
>
> this isn't a problem anymore, and most whose packa
On Sat, 8 Jan 2000, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2000, Anand Kumria wrote:
>
> > ... is anyone else seeing a large number of packages reported by:
> > $ ls -l /usr/doc | grep ^d | wc -l
> > 162
> > instead of the expected 0?
>
> Who is expecting 0 here? We expect this for Debian
On Sat, 08 Jan 2000, Anand Kumria wrote:
> ... is anyone else seeing a large number of packages reported by:
> $ ls -l /usr/doc | grep ^d | wc -l
> 162
> instead of the expected 0?
Who is expecting 0 here? We expect this for Debian 2.3, but not for
potato. In potato we expect, that every do
On Sun, Jan 09, 2000 at 07:58:39AM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> Okay, I'll email a few people, who are maintaining a lot of those
> package, asking/informing them about the problem.
this isn't a problem anymore, and most whose packages still contain
this directory already know about it
-
On Sat, 8 Jan 2000, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 08, 2000 at 11:58:56PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> >
> > ... is anyone else seeing a large number of packages reported by:
> >
> > $ ls -l /usr/doc | grep ^d | wc -l
> > 162
> >
> > instead of the expected 0?
>
> Who expected 0?
On Sat, Jan 08, 2000 at 11:58:56PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
>
> ... is anyone else seeing a large number of packages reported by:
>
> $ ls -l /usr/doc | grep ^d | wc -l
> 162
>
> instead of the expected 0?
Who expected 0? The transition is still in full swing.
> Should a mass bug report
... is anyone else seeing a large number of packages reported by:
$ ls -l /usr/doc | grep ^d | wc -l
162
instead of the expected 0? Should a mass bug report be filed against
these (ls -l /usr/doc/ | grep ^d | awk ' { printf "%s ", $9 }
') packages?
Or is there some other mechanism I should
14 matches
Mail list logo
