Re: Draft new policy document format
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:40:18 -0800, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: With this in mind, I have created an initial draft format of the Debian technical policy set, and am including it in this mail. Comments appreciated. [...] section role=PolicyRule titlePolicy Rule Example/title para role=priority propertyMUST/property /para The one concern that jumped out at me with this format is to have a single priority level for an entire rule. When writing standards documentation, I've often run into places where several priorities are used in the same logical chunk. For example, support for a feature may be only recommended, but if that feature is implemented, certain features or behavior might be a must. I'm not sure that it's always going to be simple to put a priority on the whole section. A second concern came to me while thinking about my talk at Debconf this year. By hard coding a priority in the rule itself, we preclude the possibility that various policy documents (draft, cdd, derivative, etc) might want to have a particular rule at different levels. This is most likely to be usefuule for derivatives, though CDD's might also benefit. So perhaps priority for a rule is an issuue for the master document? I also think we ought to ponder a bit more on the issue you raise: A single logical chunk might consist of multiple rules, with different priorities for each subrule. I do not see yet how to set up a mechanism for aggregating or grouping rules (like, for example, putting them in an XML Entity together) while allowing the master document to still dictate the priority of each rule. manoj -- When your work speaks for itself, don't interrupt. Henry J. Kaiser Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Relative and absolute symlinks
Hi, To summarize, here are a few use cases: 1) A directory that lives in the package is replaced by a symbolic link to another partition (I've done it in a space crunch, people sharing directories using AFS run into similar issues.) 2) Remote mounting a directory from one machine on to another with a different path (I often use sshfs to work on remote machines, people using NFS also fall into this category In case 1, relative symlinks pointing outside the heirarchy break; since the relative path to an external file is different from the old and the new location. Example: /var/lib/foo -- /u/foo /var/lib/foo/log should point to /var/logs/foo.log /u/foo/log -- /var/logs/foo.log --- works /u/foo/log -- ../../logs/foo.log --- fails In case A, symlinks pointing inside the path hierarchy continue to work (that is, a symlink with no ../ path component are sure to work, symlinks pointing up will break is the local relocation is in that upward path). So, I agree with Russ that symbolic links in the same tree should be encouraged, since that helps out in case 2, and does not break case 1. In case 2, absolute paths in the same directory tree would point to the work machine, not to the files they point to. Example: machineA:/var mounted on /mnt/machineA /var/lib/foo/log should point to /var/logs/foo.log /u/foo/log -- ../../logs/foo.log --- Works /u/foo/log -- /var/logs/foo.log --- fails (points to my foo.log, not MachneA's) The original policy was supposed to allow the latter to work as well, but it all boils down to common case. I often use sshfs, but that might not be the common case. Rhonda made the suggestion that we allow absolute links /usr/* and /var/* symlinks to be absolute between different hierarchies, since these hierarchies are often the target of relocation-via-symlinking. A suggestion was made that links in the /usr/share/doc/ hierarchy could remain relative (/usr/share/doc/bash-doc/examples - ../bash/examples, perhaps for the reason that people are unlikely to move just one directory out of /usr/share/doc/ via symlinks, and we might as well not break case 2 for folks. I think case 1 is more important than case 2, since the latter is a convenience and useful for remote admin, but case 1 helps out the local machine, and is often a godsend in critical nearly out of disk space on important server situation. Do we have consensus that a: a) links that do not climb directory trees should be encouraged to be relative (do not break case 2) b) subdirectories of /var/*/ and /usr/* should be treated as top level directories for the purposes of the relative/absolute symlink rule: any links that climbs out of /usr/foo/bar or /var/foo/bar should be absolute, and the rest of the current rule stays in place? manoj -- Linux poses a real challenge for those with a taste for late-night hacking (and/or conversations with God). (By Matt Welsh) Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Relative and absolute symlinks
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do we have consensus that a: a) links that do not climb directory trees should be encouraged to be relative (do not break case 2) b) subdirectories of /var/*/ and /usr/* should be treated as top level directories for the purposes of the relative/absolute symlink rule: any links that climbs out of /usr/foo/bar or /var/foo/bar should be absolute, and the rest of the current rule stays in place? Personally, I would be happy with that change. It makes sense to me. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Relative and absolute symlinks
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 09:57:58AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Do we have consensus that a: a) links that do not climb directory trees should be encouraged to be relative (do not break case 2) b) subdirectories of /var/*/ and /usr/* should be treated as top level directories for the purposes of the relative/absolute symlink rule: any links that climbs out of /usr/foo/bar or /var/foo/bar should be absolute, and the rest of the current rule stays in place? Fine with me. -- Lionel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: reassign
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: reassign 23712 debian-policy Bug#23712: check for packages with the same conffiles Bug reassigned from package `general' to `debian-policy'. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Relative and absolute symlinks
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 09:57:58AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Hi, To summarize, here are a few use cases: 1) A directory that lives in the package is replaced by a symbolic link to another partition (I've done it in a space crunch, people sharing directories using AFS run into similar issues.) I think case 1 is more important than case 2, since the latter is a convenience and useful for remote admin, but case 1 helps out the local machine, and is often a godsend in critical nearly out of disk space on important server situation. Not really anymore, since linux 2.6 allows to bind-mount directories and files which is generally more robust than symlinks. Maybe it is time to sanction this approach over the use of symlinks. One issue with symlink in the current arrangement is that it is difficult to link files to packages, see bug #246006. Cheers, -- Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Relative and absolute symlinks
* Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-08-27 16:57:58 CEST]: Do we have consensus that a: a) links that do not climb directory trees should be encouraged to be relative (do not break case 2) b) subdirectories of /var/*/ and /usr/* should be treated as top level directories for the purposes of the relative/absolute symlink rule: any links that climbs out of /usr/foo/bar or /var/foo/bar should be absolute, and the rest of the current rule stays in place? That would totally be along the lines that I thought and I'm glad that others think the idea makes sense, too. Thanks. :) Rhonda -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
