Anthony Towns writes:
> As I understand it, formal objections are "I never want to see this
> implemented" -- and five of them are enough to say "This solution will
> not be implemented by the policy group no matter what else may happen,
> ever";
I have no idea where you came up with this. I re
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 09:19:20AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I made the debs available for a reason. Install them. Type the commands.
> See what happens. Stop talking about what you *think*'s right, and start
> actually *testing* it. This isn't a debating exercise: there *are* right
> and wrong
> > IMHO, packages that
> > started using /usr/share/doc were premature in that usage
> Your opinion is wrong.
> Those packages follow current policy. Not using /usr/share/doc in a
> standards-version >= 3.0.0 package is a policy violation.
The policy was immature. And look at all the packages
> > > 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
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 09:23:17AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 05:32:33PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> > > > > Possibly I'm just misunderstanding what you're suggesting should be
> > > > > done
> > > > > though. Can you give a sequence of commands that does whatever you'
On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 09:49:49PM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> 2) People used the `formal objection' mechanism to stop the answer just
> because the didn't like. I don't think this was right. And the people who
> did it are starting to realize that too.. =)
I don't think that all the object
On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 09:02:53PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> (And thus useless to me.) I don't argue that dpkg has some problems with
> symlinks if a package changes the path by which it references one of its
> files. It does not have problems (as far as I have found) if a package
> consistentl
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 11:31:44AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Hmmm. This also seems like it might require pre-dependencies from every
> package against the new version of dpkg that handles following symlinks
> correctly.
Yeah. I'm not really happy about that, but I don't really see a way
around
On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 04:57:35PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > Joeyh has *NOT* modified debhelper. This is a conscious decision, not
> > slacking.
> > He states that he will change it when policy has decided what the right
> > thing
> > is. Until then debhelper stand
Everybody in this argument about what/who/etc to handle the transition (if
any) between /usr/doc to /usr/share/doc...
To date, there are 118 packages on master who are using, in some form,
/usr/share/doc...
As time goes on, more packages will "just change". Many of the developers
don't read -pol
James Mastros wrote:
> Con: All packages will have to depend on a base-files with a
> usr/share/doc/ directory.
> Reply: Is there one that dosn't?
What are you talking about? The post that started this thread said absolutly
nothing about dependancies on base-files.
--
see shy jo
Hi,
>>"Chris" == Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> There is more involved with FHS than I think many people
Chris> realize. We have a fair amount of work to do just with the
Chris> stuff that is obvious *and* non-contentious, like
Chris> /usr/share/man and /usr/share/info. I
Hi,
>>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcus> You're correct. The old prerm script is called before an
Marcus> update. This makes my analysis wrong indeed. The prerm
Marcus> scripts can go after the transition. I apologize for giving
Marcus> this wrong information. Ho
Steve Greenland wrote:
> Maybe, maybe not. Debhelper is great if the package fits into the GNU
> mold.
Eh? I've had no problems using debhelper on packages that, say, trace their
ancestry back to ms-dos (abuse, megahal). These certianly don't fit into the
GNU mold, whatever that may be.
> On othe
At 23:11 -0700 1999-08-03, Joey Hess wrote:
Hello. Some may consider this email an abuse of this mailing list. To those,
I apologize in advance.
I consider it an extreme abuse of -devel-announce.
to handle the transition to /usr/share/doc. If this discussion comes to
anything, those package t
Well we arn't getting anywhere at all with a good transition to
/usr/share/doc, but perhaps this will be easier.
I'm concerned about what happens when packages start using /usr/share/man.
Suppose I convert alien to put it's man pages there. Alien is arch
independant and there is no reason someone
Hi,
>>"Nicolás" == Nicolás Lichtmaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Nicolás> And this was handled pretty bad:
Nicolás> 1) The update to the policy was obviously bad. It needed
Nicolás>more discussion. Bad for the policy editors.
What policy editors? There aren't any who have editor
Hi,
>>"Chris" == Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> No, I didn't object to the idea, I objected to the proposal. And by
Chris> the way, I don't see *anything* about "five formal objections" in the
Chris> policy proposal policy.
A nit pick: the policy update proposal does
Joel Klecker wrote:
> At 23:11 -0700 1999-08-03, Joey Hess wrote:
> >Hello. Some may consider this email an abuse of this mailing list. To those,
> >I apologize in advance.
>
> I consider it an extreme abuse of -devel-announce.
That's nice, I suggest you review past traffic of that list. I did an
Package: debian-policy
Version: 2.5.0.0
The subject says it all ;-)
Well, from this you could draw 2, possibly 3, conclusions:
1) That I have complete and utter contempt for the process of deciding on
policy, and that I have no faith in this process.
2) That this _is_ getting out of hand, and
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 01:05:13AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Marcus> Correct. I would like to see the proposal revived, with the
> Wold it not have been better to talk first, and shoot
> afterwards? At the moment, there is no provision for reviving
> proposals that have been kille
On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 23:44:08 -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> I'm concerned about what happens when packages start using /usr/share/man.
> Suppose I convert alien to put it's man pages there. Alien is arch
> independant and there is no reason someone using stable can't install the
> latest version fro
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 00:29:29 +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On the /usr/share/doc vs. /usr/doc issue
AOL!
> I think that with a change as large as this, people must expect
> inconsistencies if they perform partial upgrades/downgrades.
We avoid these inconsistencies where reasonably possib
Your message dated 04 Aug 1999 02:31:33 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Political commentary on the process is not a bug in policy.
has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the
On Aug 03, Joey Hess wrote:
> One idea that comes to mind is to make any package that uses /usr/share/man
> depend on some package. This might be "man-db (>= 2.3.10-69g)" which is the
> first version that support /usr/share/man. Or it might need to be some other
> package which itself conflicts wit
On Aug 04, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> Your message dated 04 Aug 1999 02:31:33 -0500
> with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> and subject line Political commentary on the process is not a bug in policy.
> has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done.
>
> This means that you claim
Hi. Sorry to stick my oar in again.
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 01:11:06AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Chris" == Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Chris> There is more involved with FHS than I think many people
> Chris> realize. We have a fair amount of work to do just wit
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 09:33:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > I second this proposal, but please change the word "dependency"
> > > by "Pre-Dependency" (otherwise I would formally object ;-).
> > > Rationale: base-files (>=whatever) must be unpacked and *configured*
> > > before *any* packag
On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 09:49:49PM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> > Then someone needs to come up with a solution, NOW. Not in a month, not
> > in three months, not after we release potato. I don't like having two doc
> > directories to look in either, but we seem to be running out of other
>
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 12:48:08AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> MTA's are started immediately on configuration of the package.
>
> If you do not start the program in postinst (say a MUA) all you need is a
> dependency. If the program gets started before that, it has to pre-depend
> or deal grac
Hi,
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 01:05:13AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Marcus> Correct. I would like to see the proposal revived, with the
>> Wold it not have been better to talk first, and shoot
>> afterwards? At the moment, there is no provision
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 03:19:58AM -0500, Ruud de Rooij wrote:
> > MTA's are started immediately on configuration of the package.
> >
> > If you do not start the program in postinst (say a MUA) all you need is a
> > dependency. If the program gets started before that, it has to pre-depend
> > or
On 1999/08/04, Joseph Carter wrote:
> If base-files' postinst will always be run before the postinst for a MTA
> depending on it, then a pre-dep is not needed. It was my understanding
> that dpkg could get confused this way and run things in the wrong order.
> If we can be sure of this and it is
On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 11:00:32PM -0700, Darren O. Benham wrote:
> Everybody in this argument about what/who/etc to handle the transition (if
> any) between /usr/doc to /usr/share/doc...
>
> To date, there are 118 packages on master who are using, in some form,
> /usr/share/doc...
I think this i
I'm going to wait to see the reaction to this, however I wanted to say
that I fully agree with you. Debian at large is suffering from a "too
many chiefs and not enough indians" syndrome. Everything, EVERYTHING
seems to need the approval of everyone. If it doesn't, they want a vote.
If the vote
> Joeyh has *NOT* modified debhelper. This is a conscious decision,
> not slacking.
> He states that he will change it when policy has decided what the right thing
> is. Until then debhelper stands as is.
I know, I've been following the debate. What I am proposing is that
Joey should modify deb
First of all, I must say that I did not follow the threads about
/usr/share/doc, so I may say things which were already said. please
forgive me for that.
My very personal opinion about all this, is that we need more
abstraction : packages _should_not_ hardcode installation paths. I
think that it s
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 10:47:54AM +0200, Ruud de Rooij wrote:
> > If base-files' postinst will always be run before the postinst for a MTA
> > depending on it, then a pre-dep is not needed. It was my understanding
> > that dpkg could get confused this way and run things in the wrong order.
> > If
Roman Hodek wrote:
> Hmm... but the parser still has to decide if the thing in parens is an
> arch spec or a version spec, which isn't really trivial, as the
> version number can be an arbitrary string.
Yes, but a version specification starts with "<", "=" or ">" so it can
be decided at the first
Okay, my two cents on the issue. I hope I'm not just adding more noise
to the ratio, but since I have no particular policy axe to grind,
perhaps I may be a bit more impartial
On Mon, Aug 02, 1999 at 04:06:15PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Thanks for reopening the debate, Chris.
>
> I am
> Well we arn't getting anywhere at all with a good transition to
> /usr/share/doc, but perhaps this will be easier.
>
> I'm concerned about what happens when packages start using /usr/share/man.
> Suppose I convert alien to put it's man pages there. Alien is arch
> independant and there is no rea
On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 09:52:04PM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> The policy was immature.
Shouldn't the decision be undone for now, then?
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
"... memory leaks are quite acceptable in many applications ..."
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 12:29:29AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> why don't we follow the Perl team's lead
I most definitely agree with your plan.
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
"... memory leaks are quite acceptable in many applications ..."
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 01:31:09AM -0400, James Mastros wrote:
> Con: There will be a period where some packages use usr/doc and some
> usr/share/doc, confusing users.
> Reply: It's called unstable for a reason.
... and that period is already here.
> Con: All packages will have
On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 11:11:45PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Thus, I would like to encourage everyone to wait until this issue is
> resolved or until we agree there is no good resolution, before implementing
> the current policy of making packages use /usr/share/doc.
Here's what I'll do:
* I re
J.H.M. Dassen Ray" wrote:
> Point out that we only support truely smooth upgrades between releases and
> that in this case, they need to upgrade their man-db too.
Debian has a history of worrying about incemental upgrades as well.
Otherwise we wouldn't be havcing the whole /usr/share/doc discussio
Giuliano Procida wrote:
> Peoples' score files (analogous to "documentation") are no longer
> where they expect them. This is not so serious.
I think this is a non-issue. Who reads score files by hand? Most are binary
files anyway. The games will know where to look.
> However, the save
> files ne
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 02:18:31PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 01:31:09AM -0400, James Mastros wrote:
> > Con: There will be a period where some packages use usr/doc and some
> > usr/share/doc, confusing users.
> > Reply: It's called unstable for a
Julian Gilbey wrote:
> I am extremely wary of adding large amounts of code to support partial
> upgrades.
My idea to make it work involves a simgle dependancy. No code.
> While we do ensure that the dependenies make the dynamic
> linking and suchlike work without a hitch, I do not see it as
> rea
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 02:05:31PM -0400, James Mastros wrote:
> Beutiful... so we're already implementing this.
Current policy specifies /usr/share/doc .
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
"... memory leaks are quite acceptable in many applicatio
Anthony Towns writes:
> --ncSAzJYg3Aa9+CRW
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 08:32:57AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > > I second this proposal, but please change the word "dependency"
> > > by "Pre-Dependency" (otherwise I would formally object ;-).
> > >
Joey Hess wrote:
> But when they do, they discover they can no longer read alien's man
> page, becuase their old man browser doesn't grok
> /usr/share/man. What to do?
They can modify /etc/manpath.config to include /usr/share/man.
Richard Braakman
Le Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 02:17:44PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho écrivait:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 12:29:29AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > why don't we follow the Perl team's lead
>
> I most definitely agree with your plan.
I also agree that there's no perfect solution and that we should ju
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
> Debian currently has 10 thousand dependancies [1]. I was proposing 1
> additional dependancy per package with man page, which does *not* double
> that number. 2216 packages contain man pages.
So you want to add a dependency to all of those packages, because
Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> So you want to add a dependency to all of those packages, because some old
> package doesn't work with them? Following normal logic, I would say the
> would have to have "Conflicts: man-db (< the_first_version_that_works)",
> instead.
I was thinking they could simply depe
Richard Braakman wrote:
> Joey Hess wrote:
>
> > But when they do, they discover they can no longer read alien's man
> > page, becuase their old man browser doesn't grok
> > /usr/share/man. What to do?
>
> They can modify /etc/manpath.config to include /usr/share/man.
So debian's new statement W
Le Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 02:15:56AM -0700, Joseph Carter écrivait:
> I'm going to wait to see the reaction to this, however I wanted to say
> that I fully agree with you. Debian at large is suffering from a "too
> many chiefs and not enough indians" syndrome. Everything, EVERYTHING
> seems to need
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No. I said that under the guidelines, there has been no
> provision to reopen proposals that were rejected under the same
> guidelines. People are not really constrained to follow the
> guidelines.
I don't see anything in the guidelines t
Previously Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> The only working solution I see is that we should have a group of
> (known) developers that would decide in such difficult cases.
Someone should request the technical committee for a ruling. You can
reach them at debian-ctte@lists.debian.org . Their decision is
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A nit pick: the policy update proposal does not have the
> weight of policy. It is merely a convention, or guidelines.
Yes, very good thing to keep in mind.
> If the issue raised is especially contentious, or is deemed to be
> sui
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
> >>"Chris" == Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Chris> There is more involved with FHS than I think many people
> Chris> realize. We have a fair amount of work to do just with the
> Chris> stuff that is obvious *and* non-contentious
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
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 12:16:51PM -0700, Carl R. Witty wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 08:32:57AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > > > I second this proposal, but please change the word "dependency"
> > > > by "Pre-Dependency"
> > Why does /var/mail have to exist before those packages are unpack
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 42477 [PROPOSED] delay the /usr/doc transition till after potato
Bug#42477: [PROPOSED} delay the /usr/doc transition till after potato
Changed bug title.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Ian Jackson
64 matches
Mail list logo
