"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Raul> (*) debian policy 3.0.0.0 was ratified (which specifies the use of FHS > Raul> in place of FSSTND) but it did not address how to manage the migration > Raul> between the two standards. The implication is that all packages which > Raul> have not yet made the migration are now non-compliant with policy. > > Raul> This seems to me to be fundamentally wrong -- policy should never have > Raul> been ratified which says that every existing package violates policy. > Raul> Policy should typically represent the best of existing practice..
On Thu, Aug 19, 1999 at 01:35:38AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > So how do we have major transitions like the one being > contemplated now? To wit: old policy said that packages follow the > FSSTND. At some point in the future, we are to follow the FHS. How > does one modify policy in such a way that would avoid your objection? [I'm going to keep this brief -- I've just got my system back up after a major power outage, and there are a number of emergencies I still have to deal with.] Why not design the transition so that existing (FSSTND) packages can be compliant with policy, but so that new packages can also comply with FHS? I'm aware that there's a dpkg bug which causes a problem with the obvious solution for /usr/doc/, but that seems like not a good reason to jump in with policy changes which declare every package buggy. Debian developers are pretty good about heading towards agreed on goals, by the way... [Though with as many packages as we have change cannot be fast.] Thanks, -- Raul
