Your message dated Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:44:51 -0700 with message-id <87o9rlx51o....@iris.silentflame.com> and subject line Closing inactive Policy bugs has caused the Debian Bug report #562863, regarding Extend description of filesystem namespace clashes to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 562863: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=562863 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---Package: debian-policy Version: 18.104.22.168 In the first paragraph in §10.1 (Binaries), there's a description of when is and is not appropriate to have a filename clash for binaries, and what to do if such situation arises. I think this needs to be extended and generalized to include several other cases, maybe refactoring the information into other sections and making this one a reference to them. The points I think need mentioning are: * This should apply to any public interfaces, not just binaries, as similar problemes arise with incompatible or completely distinct functionality being exposed through the same pathname. Those would include among others: header files, shared/static libraries, plugins, interpreter modules, etc. * Make explicit it's not acceptable to move a conflicting binary into another directory in the PATH, as that does not actually solve the filename clash, it just shadows it. (This might already be implied by the fact that it talks about filenames instead of pathnames, but making it more clear seems important to me.) * It's not acceptable to use Replaces or diversions either to get out of such situation. I guess this one is obvious, but I think it's worth including even if just in passing in a parenthetical like the references to alternatives and Conflicts in §10.1. If there's agreement on this, I might try to provide some wording at some point if no one else has done that already by then. regards, guillem
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---control: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org control: usertag -1 +obsolete control: tag -1 +wontfix Russ Allbery and I did a round of in-person bug triage at DebConf17 and we are closing this bug as inactive. The reasons for closing fall into the following categories, from most frequent to least frequent: - issue is appropriate for Policy, there is a consensus on how to fix the problem, but preparing the patch is very time-consuming and no-one has volunteered to do it, and we do not judge the issue to be important enough to keep an open bug around; - issue is appropriate for Policy but there does not yet exist a consensus on what should change, and no recent discussion. A fresh discussion might allow us to reach consensus, and the messages in the old bug are unlikely to help very much; or - issue is not appropriate for Policy. If you feel this bug is still relevant and want to restart the discussion, you can re-open the bug. However, please consider instead opening a new bug with a message that summarises and condenses the previous discussion, updates the report for the current state of Debian, and makes clear exactly what you think should change. A lot of these old bugs have long side tangents and numerous messages, and that old discussion is not necessarily helpful for figuring out what Debian Policy should say today. -- Sean Whitton
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---