It seems to me that Manoj has got the impression I'm trying to make the `old' FSSTND status quo permanent with my resolution. That's not the case. I'm just trying to fix the immediate problem to produce some calm and time for us to consider the transition.
Manoj: you must agree that there is need for us to discuss this, because there is disagreement and we haven't come to consensus yet. So, is it not right for us to mandate that the status quo be preserved, as Wichert requested in his mail ? Having looked at my propsed resolution it didn't make it clear that it's an interim solution. So I've added a bit on the end saying what the committee will do after this resolution - ie, look at the complex issues surrounding symlinks, dpkg, existing packages, finding documents, etc. I propose the resolution below, in place of my previous one. Manoj, if you don't agree with this as a status-quo-preserving resolution, please propose amendments, or a counter-resolution. I will call for a vote shortly. Proposed resolution of the Technical Committee `Interim decision to preserve status quo wrt fhs transition' Given that: * Wichert has made an announcement saying we should preserve the status quo pending a decision; * it will obviously take a little while to make a decision, particularly given that the technical committee's internal mechanisms haven't been debugged yet because they've not previously been used; * packages already using /usr/share/doc may make whatever decision we come up with hard to implemement; * people on debian-policy have tried getting the policy reverted to preserve the status quo as requested by Wichert, with no avail; * no analysis of the changes between FSSTND and FHS seems to have been made to determine whether to make the change and if so how best to do it; The Technical Committee mandates that, firstly: * Until a the a list of the differences between FSSTND and FHS, with a decision whether to change and if applicable a transition plan for each, has been prepared, Debian should continue to use the FHS. And in particular: * Until a decision on transition to FHS directories has been made by the Committee, /usr/share/doc, /var/state and /var/mail should not yet be used to by Debian packages. Instead, packages should continue to place files in and refer to /usr/doc, /var/lib and /var/spool/mail. Therefore: * The policy manual should immediately be amended accordingly immediately, to change the reference to the FHS back to the FSSTND, and to add a comment saying that /usr/share/doc, /var/state and /var/mail are not yet to be used or referred to. * If the policy editors or policy group feel it necessary to ratify this change to the policy manual with the formal policy process this should be done after the policy has been changed; the policy editors should change the policy manual and issue an updated version immediately. * Lintian and any other package checking software which has already made the change to FHS should be changed back immediately. Finally, the Technical Committee resolves that it will: * Enquire with the debian-policy group, maintainers of packaging tools, and other relevant Developers, to make clear in the minds of the members of the Committee what the issues and options are with respect to FHS transition; * Discuss and agree a proposal for moving /usr/doc to /usr/share/doc, including a transition plan; * Discuss and agree policy on other aspects of FHS transition, or agree to refer this matter back to the debian-policy group, possibly with some specific advice. Ian.
