CVS srivasta: Added example for why one may call ldconfig anywhere in the
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy Module name:debian-policy Changes by: srivastaTue Nov 12 23:05:25 MST 2002 Modified files: . : policy.sgml Log message: Added example for why one may call ldconfig anywhere in the postsint.closes: Bug#120585
CVS srivasta: Added example for why one may call ldconfig anywhere in the
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy Module name:debian-policy Changes by: srivastaTue Nov 12 23:05:44 MST 2002 Modified files: debian : changelog Log message: Added example for why one may call ldconfig anywhere in the postsint.closes: Bug#120585
Bug#120585: apparently what lintian does is valid, ldconfig use outside $1=configure is not documented as safe
Herbert == Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Herbert Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So... please either provide a rationale for this optional invocation, in which case the lintian warning postinst-unsafe-ldconfig stays just a warning, or remove the clause, in which case the lintian warning gets Herbert It is perfectly safe to invoke ldconfig unconditionally in a postinst Herbert script. Thus it is OK for a package to simply put ldconfig in its Herbert postinst without checking $1. This sounds fair enough. The ldconfig must be called when psotinst configure is called; and optionally when postinst is called with other arguments; so the wording of policy should not be changed to narrow invocation of ldconfig. I have added the rationale; and it shall be in the next upload. manoj -- She's learned to say things with her eyes that others waste time putting into words. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#167422: files in /usr/share should be world-readable
Branden == Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Branden On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 08:10:02PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: You can decide not to log for _your_ package. I certainly am going to continue to log the compilation for mine. Branden Well, will you consider placing them in a more FHS-friendly location Branden than /usr/share? :) The log file lives in the same place as the generated e;c files; I consider them all as files generated while bytecompiling. What was your recommendation? manoj -- PROGRAMMER: (n) Red-eyed, mumbling mammal capable of conversing with inanimate objects. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
Hi, [Please followup to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] There is a proposal under consideration for changing the undocumented(7) man page. The current proposal is included below; it is not yet the final form; and input of the general community is solicited. I have brought this modification to the notice of the full developer list since I think that this may impact a number of people, including users, whose views should be taken into account. I personally find the undocumented (7) man page frustrating, since I expected to see documentation, and was told there was none after a wait (yes, I had a slow machine). I would have much rather not had my hopes raised, and that man itself told me there was no manual page. In any case, please follow up to the address given. manoj --- policy.sgml.orig2002-11-12 12:50:40.0 + +++ policy.sgml 2002-11-12 12:51:30.0 + @@ -7485,22 +7485,22 @@ page included as well. /p - p - If no manual page is available for a particular program, - utility, function or configuration file and this is reported - as a bug to the Debian Bug Tracking System, a symbolic link - from the requested manual page to the manref - name=undocumented section=7 manual page may be - provided. This symbolic link can be created from - filedebian/rules/file like this: - example compact=compact -ln -s ../man7/undocumented.7.gz \ - debian/tmp/usr/share/man/man[1-9]/varrequested_manpage/var.[1-9].gz - /example - This manpage claims that the lack of a manpage has been - reported as a bug, so you may only do this if it really has - (you can report it yourself, if you like). Do not close the - bug report until a proper manpage is available./p +p + There should be a manual page at least for every program. If + no manual page is available, this is considered as a bug and + should be reported to the Debian Bug Tracking System (the + maintainer of the package is allowed to write this bug report + himself, too). Do not close the bug report until a proper + manpage is available.footnote + p + It is not very hard to write a man page. See the url + id=http://www.schweikhardt.net/man_page_howto.html; + name=Man-Page-HOWTO, ttman(7)/tt, the examples + created by ttdebmake/tt or ttdh_make/tt, or the + directory file/usr/share/doc/man-db/examples/file. + /p + /footnote + /p p You may forward a complaint about a missing manpage to the -- Prediction is very difficult, especially of the future. Niels Bohr Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:14:50AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: undocumented(7) man page. The current proposal is included below; it is not yet the final form; and input of the general community is Even if I really hate writing man pages, I second this proposal. I think that a lot o undocumented man pages exists only because the maintainer has forgetten them or something like that, having bugs in the BTS should increase the number of available manpages and improbe the debian quality even more. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli - undergraduate student of CS @ Univ. Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED] | ICQ# 33538863 | http://www.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant! -- G.Romney pgpDJFEoEwx0i.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote: + There should be a manual page at least for every program. If + no manual page is available, this is considered as a bug Agree. The kde people will have a very hard time... *t -- --- Tomas Pospisek SourcePole - Linux Open Source Solutions http://sourcepole.ch Elestastrasse 18, 7310 Bad Ragaz, Switzerland Tel: +41 (81) 330 77 11 ---
Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 10:10:32AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:14:50AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: undocumented(7) man page. The current proposal is included below; it is not yet the final form; and input of the general community is Even if I really hate writing man pages, I second this proposal. I think that a lot o undocumented man pages exists only because the maintainer has forgetten them or something like that, having bugs in the BTS should increase the number of available manpages and improbe the debian quality even more. Note that the current policy forces maintainers to bug themselves if they use 'undocumented'. So your reason is not a reason (since the problem would be solved with current policy). In any case we might need a mass-filing bug regarding packages not passing lintian check for undocumented and *without* a bug report asking for a manpage. Javi
Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I personally find the undocumented (7) man page frustrating,
since I expected to see documentation, and was told there was none
after a wait (yes, I had a slow machine). I would have much rather
not had my hopes raised, and that man itself told me there was no
manual page.
How about if we made this configurable:
Move undocumented.7.gz to undocumented.real.7.gz
Create a symlink from the former to the latter in the postinst upon
installation or upgrading from a version without it. Then people
who don't want to see it can simply delete the symlink.
They would get a warning from man of course, but that should be easy
to special case in man(1).
Personally I think the manual page would be useful to users new
to Debian.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmVHI~} [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 08:40:21PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I personally find the undocumented (7) man page frustrating, since I expected to see documentation, and was told there was none after a wait (yes, I had a slow machine). I would have much rather not had my hopes raised, and that man itself told me there was no manual page. How about if we made this configurable: Move undocumented.7.gz to undocumented.real.7.gz Create a symlink from the former to the latter in the postinst upon installation or upgrading from a version without it. Then people who don't want to see it can simply delete the symlink. They would get a warning from man of course, but that should be easy to special case in man(1). I think dangling symlinks in place of man pages are bugs, and would greatly prefer not to special-case such things in man-db. One of the reasons I like this proposal is that it gets rid of the farm of dangling symlinks when the manpages package isn't installed. Personally I think the manual page would be useful to users new to Debian. Indeed, and I think that the manual page should stay and be referred to in other ways (e.g. in the No manual entry for foo message, as I suggested earlier). This proposal just removes the obligation to create the undocumented(7) symlinks. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 06:52:28PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: + It is not very hard to write a man page. See the url + id=http://www.schweikhardt.net/man_page_howto.html; + name=Man-Page-HOWTO, ttman(7)/tt, the examples + created by ttdebmake/tt or ttdh_make/tt, or the + directory file/usr/share/doc/man-db/examples/file. Oh, and that should be manref name=man section=7. Again, I'm happy to leave it to a policy editor to fix the markup if desired. Another reason why requiring SGML patches instead of pure content is wrong... I don't think SGML patches are required anywhere. I also tried creating one once, and it's not worth the trouble, especially if your editor is not setup to grok SGML and how to break lines correctly. Can we make a recommendation somewhere visible that people modify and diff against policy.txt.gz instead? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing, `. `' | Imperial College, `- -- | London, UK
Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: + There should be a manual page at least for every program. If + no manual page is available, this is considered as a bug and + should be reported to the Debian Bug Tracking System (the + maintainer of the package is allowed to write this bug report + himself, too). Do not close the bug report until a proper + manpage is available.footnote + p + It is not very hard to write a man page. See the url + id=http://www.schweikhardt.net/man_page_howto.html; + name=Man-Page-HOWTO, ttman(7)/tt, the examples + created by ttdebmake/tt or ttdh_make/tt, or the + directory file/usr/share/doc/man-db/examples/file. + /p + /footnote + /p Maybe mention help2man (if program understands --help and --version) would be good too. (I took a quick look at the bugreport, looks like noone said that before. :) ) help2man is a good start for a manpage. -- begin OjE-ist-scheisse.txt bye, Joerg Encrypted Mail preferred! Registered Linux User #97793 @ http://counter.li.org end
Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
Herbert == Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Herbert Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I personally find the undocumented (7) man page frustrating, since I expected to see documentation, and was told there was none after a wait (yes, I had a slow machine). I would have much rather not had my hopes raised, and that man itself told me there was no manual page. Herbert How about if we made this configurable: Herbert Move undocumented.7.gz to undocumented.real.7.gz Herbert Create a symlink from the former to the latter in the postinst upon Herbert installation or upgrading from a version without it. Then people Herbert who don't want to see it can simply delete the symlink. I don't think we should ask people to muck around in /usr/man in order not to be annoyed. Herbert They would get a warning from man of course, but that should be easy Herbert to special case in man(1). Sounds like a Kludge. Herbert Personally I think the manual page would be useful to users new Herbert to Debian. I disagree. One should design for the common case; one is a newbie for a short time, one is irritated by this misfeature for the rest of ones life. Instead, there should be an easily accessible, and well advertised document for newbies, that covers how to get information about programs, as well as other information geared towards the newcomer. A unified document, which serves as a central place, is a much better option than kludging each and every facility individually. manoj -- You have only to mumble a few words in church to get married and few words in your sleep to get divorced. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
Colin == Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Colin The undocumented(7) page itself can continue to exist. As discussed on Colin IRC, I'm happy to hack man-db so that it can (configurably) point to Colin further information in addition to the No manual entry for foo Colin message. Could this be implemented first, then? That would make the policy change more palatable to many people, and seems to elegantly address the need for newbies to see additional information on how to get at documentation, without irritating more experienced users. manoj -- The good (I am convinced, for one) Is but the bad one leaves undone. Once your reputation's done You can live a life of fun. Wilhelm Busch Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
Andrew == Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Andrew I don't think SGML patches are required anywhere. I also tried Andrew creating one once, and it's not worth the trouble, especially if your Andrew editor is not setup to grok SGML and how to break lines correctly. Can Andrew we make a recommendation somewhere visible that people modify and diff Andrew against policy.txt.gz instead? I would prefer not to make that a recommendation. Those patches are accepted, of course, but I do really prefer sgml diffs. I am not about to make it a requirement, but I'd rather not recommend something that goes against making less work for the editor. I don't think this is a big deal, really, do you? manoj -- The only difference between the saint and the sinner is that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future. Oscar Wilde Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
Josip == Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Again, I'm happy to leave it to a policy editor to fix the markup if desired. Josip Another reason why requiring SGML patches instead of pure content is Josip wrong... Why is it wrong? It makes things easier for policy editors, who, in the past, have been harried enough that sgml patches ensured that a change got worked on instead of shelved until a later time. And debiandoc/docbook is not a hard DTD to write to (especially if you use a dtd aware editor like psgml+emacs) manoj -- My father had the spirit and integrity of a scientist, but he was a salesman. I remember asking him the question How can a man of integrity be a salesman? He said to me, Frankly, many salesmen in the business are not straightforward -- they think it's a better way to sell. But I've tried being straightforward, and I find it has its advantages. In fact, I wouldn't do it any other way. If the customer thinks at all, he'll realize he has had some bad experience with another salesman, but hasn't had that kind of experience with you. So in the end, several customers will stay with you for a long time and appreciate it. Richard P. Feynman, _What Do You Care What Other People Think?_ Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
CVS joy: in the footnote related to ldconfig, split paragraphs per each maintainer script, and rephrased an incoherent sentence about the postrm
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy Module name:debian-policy Changes by: joy Wed Nov 13 09:40:10 MST 2002 Modified files: . : policy.sgml Log message: in the footnote related to ldconfig, split paragraphs per each maintainer script, and rephrased an incoherent sentence about the postrm
Re: Bug#167422: files in /usr/share should be world-readable
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:17:48AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Branden == Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Branden On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 08:10:02PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: You can decide not to log for _your_ package. I certainly am going to continue to log the compilation for mine. Branden Well, will you consider placing them in a more FHS-friendly location Branden than /usr/share? :) The log file lives in the same place as the generated e;c files; I consider them all as files generated while bytecompiling. What was your recommendation? I don't have one any more specific than somewhere under /var. /var/log doesn't work if the byte-compiler isn't running as the root user or the adm group. *Does* the byte-compiler run as root? -- G. Branden Robinson| Communism is just one step on the Debian GNU/Linux | long road from capitalism to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | capitalism. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Russian saying pgpZ0RHzirOUL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:14:50AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: There is a proposal under consideration for changing the undocumented(7) man page. The current proposal is included below; it is not yet the final form; and input of the general community is solicited. I have brought this modification to the notice of the full developer list since I think that this may impact a number of people, including users, whose views should be taken into account. Well, no one appears to have really objected. Response on -devel has been neutral to positive. I say we go with it. As a newly appointed Policy editor, I have the power to enforce my will. /me pauses for a moment, watching the waves of horror break over debian-devel :) However, since Manoj took point on this issue I'll defer to his judgement as to when the comment period should end. Unless he wants to delegate the conclusion of this matter to one of the other editors (Julian, Josip, or me). (...ah, this post was worth it just for the wicked grin I had on my face while writing it. :) ) -- G. Branden Robinson| I suspect Linus wrote that in a Debian GNU/Linux | complicated way only to be able to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | have that comment in there. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Lars Wirzenius pgpab97W8JXzr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 09:48:01AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Again, I'm happy to leave it to a policy editor to fix the markup if desired. Josip Another reason why requiring SGML patches instead of pure content is Josip wrong... Why is it wrong? It makes things easier for policy editors, who, in the past, have been harried enough that sgml patches ensured that a change got worked on instead of shelved until a later time. And debiandoc/docbook is not a hard DTD to write to I don't think it makes it easy, since I never blindly apply patches anyway :) If this was large rewrite patches, perhaps, but for small things it's just as easy to copy and paste it, build it and see if it needs any formatting adjustments to be more readable. The contents of the policy proposals is what matters, how it's formatted is a really minor technical detail which only distracts IMHO. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Re: Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 09:41:51AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Colin == Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Colin The undocumented(7) page itself can continue to exist. As discussed on Colin IRC, I'm happy to hack man-db so that it can (configurably) point to Colin further information in addition to the No manual entry for foo Colin message. Could this be implemented first, then? That would make the policy change more palatable to many people, and seems to elegantly address the need for newbies to see additional information on how to get at documentation, without irritating more experienced users. Sure, I'll work on it over the next few days. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 09:50:12AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: I would prefer not to make that a recommendation. Those patches are accepted, of course, but I do really prefer sgml diffs. I am not about to make it a requirement, but I'd rather not recommend something that goes against making less work for the editor. I don't think this is a big deal, really, do you? I think now that we have Josip as an editor, he can pick any SGML diffs free of nits. :) -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | Ab abusu ad usum non valet [EMAIL PROTECTED] | consequentia. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpXvQFO0i8SP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:14:50AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: There is a proposal under consideration for changing the undocumented(7) man page. The current proposal is included below; it is not yet the final form; and input of the general community is solicited. Excuse me? This is an old proposal which has been much debated and much revised. It was also generally well-received, and I'm not quite sure how it slipped between the cracks for so long. Colin's new revision was proposed on Oct 30, and he suggested two weeks debate (which seems more than fair since this was already an old proposal). Some minor changes (i.e. s/must/should/) were proposed by me and Mark Brown, and since the discussion period IS NOW UP, the text posted by Manoj to -devel (which incorporates the minor changes) IS INDEED THE FINAL FORM! The decision to forward this to -devel (and to make misleading claims about its status) seems to have been a unilateral decision on Manoj's part. If he weren't professing his own love for the proposal, I would suspect an underhanded attempt to undermine the proposal for reasons unstated. If I were really paranoid, I'd speculate about why the policy editors ignored the earlier versions of this proposal, which, after much debate, *was accepted*! But I won't go there. But I am perturbed by Manoj's attempt to drag the debate out further when this proposal has been debated to death since June of 1999! And all objections have been answered or addressed. And it has a full complement (more than) of proper seconds already, and no remaining objections. I am also perturbed that Manoj, who WROTE our current policy update policy seems to be completely and deliberately ignoring that policy with his post to -devel. Manoj, what gives? (If you actually object to the proposal, please, object!) Anyway, while I have no objections to input from -devel readers, I have to say that anyone who's concerned about how changes in policy may affect them should already be subscribed to -policy. Now, if this were my proposal, I might allow a further three days discussion, out of respect for Manoj. I think three days is more than adequate for a three-year-old proposal. But at this point, it's Colin's proposal, and unless *he* decides to extend the debate, I think this proposal lives or dies TODAY! (And with many seconds and no objections, that means it lives.) And just to quell any last-minute fears people may have, who missed the earlier, extensive debates: this proposal does NOT forbid the use of undocumented(7). The use of undocumented(7) HAS ALWAYS BEEN A BUG! This is why current policy REQUIRES you to have an open bug report before using undocumented(7). This proposal simply removes the APPARENT blessing of policy from what is, and always has been, a buggy state. Existing packages will be no more buggy than they already have been. At most, this may help to remind people to file some bug reports that should have been on file long ago! -- Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra-osis is too long [EMAIL PROTECTED] | microscopicsilico-to fit into a single or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
Re: Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
I have some reservations about this. Along with potential false hopes during load time, the undocumented page provides pointers to places where documentation may be found. It may be irritating to people in the know, but since man is still the most widely known unix documentation interface, new users may be helped by these pointers. Britton Kerin __ GNU GPL: The Source will be with you... always. On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Branden Robinson wrote: On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:14:50AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: There is a proposal under consideration for changing the undocumented(7) man page. The current proposal is included below; it is not yet the final form; and input of the general community is solicited. I have brought this modification to the notice of the full developer list since I think that this may impact a number of people, including users, whose views should be taken into account. Well, no one appears to have really objected. Response on -devel has been neutral to positive. I say we go with it. As a newly appointed Policy editor, I have the power to enforce my will. /me pauses for a moment, watching the waves of horror break over debian-devel :) However, since Manoj took point on this issue I'll defer to his judgement as to when the comment period should end. Unless he wants to delegate the conclusion of this matter to one of the other editors (Julian, Josip, or me). (...ah, this post was worth it just for the wicked grin I had on my face while writing it. :) ) -- G. Branden Robinson| I suspect Linus wrote that in a Debian GNU/Linux | complicated way only to be able to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | have that comment in there. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Lars Wirzenius
News!
ENTER THIS LINK http://www.scorpion-pipes.com/ Rauchästhetik auf höchstem Niveau Deutsch English Copyright © scorpionpipes 2002. All rights reserved.
Re: Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
On 13-Nov-02, 15:22 (CST), Britton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have some reservations about this. Along with potential false hopes during load time, the undocumented page provides pointers to places where documentation may be found. It may be irritating to people in the know, but since man is still the most widely known unix documentation interface, new users may be helped by these pointers. Colin already volunteered to hack man to provide the pointers instead of a simple 'manpage not found'. Next! Steve -- Steve Greenland The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world. -- seen on the net
Re: Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 12:38, Josip Rodin wrote: The contents of the policy proposals is what matters, how it's formatted is a really minor technical detail which only distracts IMHO. I think we should encourage people to submit SGML patches, because this encourages people to do things like link to related sections or outside URLs. A well linked document is easier to understand. I fully agree though that *requiring* SGML patches would be bad.
Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:22:58PM -0900, Britton wrote: I have some reservations about this. Along with potential false hopes during load time, the undocumented page provides pointers to places where documentation may be found. It may be irritating to people in the know, but since man is still the most widely known unix documentation interface, new users may be helped by these pointers. I completely agree that the undocumented(7) page is useful to new users. That's why I suggest that it should remain on the system, and that man should provide a much more lightweight pointer to it when no manual page is found. My development version of man currently says: $ src/man wibble No manual entry for wibble See 'man 7 undocumented' for help with undocumented features. Does this address your reservations? Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:22:03PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote: Now, if this were my proposal, I might allow a further three days discussion, out of respect for Manoj. I think three days is more than adequate for a three-year-old proposal. But at this point, it's Colin's proposal, and unless *he* decides to extend the debate, I think this proposal lives or dies TODAY! (And with many seconds and no objections, that means it lives.) Although I am obviously in favour of having this proposal approved :-), I don't mind extending the discussion period by a few days. I've just uploaded man-db 2.4.0-11 with the additional text in the error message on an experimental basis; if that allays people's concerns about providing help to new users (minor wording changes and perhaps configurability aside), I think we should then go ahead. Thanks for the robust support, though. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
Britton == Britton Leo Kerin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Britton I have some reservations about this. Along with potential Britton false hopes during load time, the undocumented page provides Britton pointers to places where documentation may be found. It may Britton be irritating to people in the know, but since man is still Britton the most widely known unix documentation interface, new Britton users may be helped by these pointers. Colin has already addressed this by agreeing to expand the no man page found diagnostic message to be more verbose than it is now. manoj -- I haven't lost my mind; I know exactly where I left it. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:22:58PM -0900, Britton wrote: Along with potential false hopes during load time, the undocumented page provides pointers to places where documentation may be found. An actual man page would do a better job of that. The point of this proposal is that people should provide man pages! Lots of people seem to think that as soon as they make a link to undocumented(7), their job is done. Well it's not! If you can create a debian/control file, you can write a simple man page that (at least) explains EXACTLY where the full documentation for this program is to be found -- not just a list of possible places to start hunting. Even a half-assed man page is better than using undocumented(7), and I don't believe there's a person in this project who can't generate a half-assed man page in about 15 minutes, given some example man pages to start with. Does that answer your reservations? -- Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra-osis is too long [EMAIL PROTECTED] | microscopicsilico-to fit into a single or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
Bug#168435: debian-policy: Remove the requirement to install static libraries
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 04:25:00PM +0100, Sebastian Rittau wrote: The main aspect of this proposal is the removed requirement of including static versions of each library in the corresponding -dev package. Many modern libraries don't work well as a static library and usage of static libraries should be deprecated except for a few specific cases. I'd be curious to know of an example of a modern library which doesn't work well when compiled statically. This policy change would allow maintainers to decide for themselves, whether a static version of their library is useful, [...] Whether linking against a static version of a library is useful may only be determined by the requirements of library's users, not the maintainer. --bod
Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
Chris == Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Chris On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:14:50AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: There is a proposal under consideration for changing the undocumented(7) man page. The current proposal is included below; it is not yet the final form; and input of the general community is solicited. Chris Excuse me? This is an old proposal which has been much debated and Chris much revised. I did not say it was a new proposal. Chris It was also generally well-received, and I'm not quite sure Chris how it slipped between the cracks for so long. *Shrug*. Since only one or two of the supposewd set of 5 or 6 policy editors were active at any given time, things got done when there was time, and some stuff did tend to slip between the cracks. Chris Colin's new revision was proposed on Oct 30, and he suggested Chris two weeks debate (which seems more than fair since this was Chris already an old proposal). Some minor changes Chris (i.e. s/must/should/) were proposed by me and Mark Brown, and Chris since the discussion period IS NOW UP, the text posted by Chris Manoj to -devel (which incorporates the minor changes) IS Chris INDEED THE FINAL FORM! Well, no, since Colin agreed that editorial changes to the SGML were indeed permissible. Chris The decision to forward this to -devel (and to make misleading Chris claims about its status) misleading? Chris seems to have been a unilateral decision on Manoj's part. If Of course it was. And I reserve the right to forward matrerial on a public mailing list to any other mailing list as I feel desrves to be forwarded. If you think that such unilateral action is unwarranted, you do not understand how mailing lists work. Chris he weren't professing his own love for the proposal, I would Chris suspect an underhanded attempt to undermine the proposal for Chris reasons unstated. My, my. We are paranoid, aren't we? Chris If I were really paranoid, I'd speculate about why the policy Chris editors ignored the earlier versions of this proposal, which, Chris after much debate, *was accepted*! But I won't go there. You already have. If your opinion mattered to me, perhaps I would respond substantively. Chris But I am perturbed by Manoj's attempt to drag the debate out Chris further when this proposal has been debated to death since Chris June of 1999! And all objections have been answered or Chris addressed. And it has a full complement (more than) of proper Chris seconds already, and no remaining objections. Well, I think because getting input from the general developer body is never a bad idea. I think that major changes in packaging ought to receive wider circulation than just the policy list. Chris I am also perturbed that Manoj, who WROTE our current policy Chris update policy seems to be completely and deliberately ignoring Chris that policy with his post to -devel. Manoj, what gives? (If Chris you actually object to the proposal, please, object!) Also, because I am more interested in doing the right thing, and looking at the spirit of the consensus building process, rather than being a rules lawyer. You do agree that resolving any flaws we may have overlooked is more important than not missing a deadline, don't you? And stop being paranoid. This is not an adversarial situation (unless you make it so), the idea is to et to the best solution we can. Chris Anyway, while I have no objections to input from -devel Chris readers, I have to say that anyone who's concerned about how Chris changes in policy may affect them should already be subscribed Chris to -policy. Yeah, in an ideal world. But most often policy issues are not of interest to the wider body of developers. Once in a while, a topic that may have wider impact comes along, and then we inform -devel, and ask for input. This policy is not going to change. Chris Now, if this were my proposal, I might allow a further three Chris days discussion, out of respect for Manoj. I think three days Chris is more than adequate for a three-year-old proposal. But at Chris this point, it's Colin's proposal, and unless *he* decides to Chris extend the debate, I think this proposal lives or dies TODAY! Chris (And with many seconds and no objections, that means it Chris lives.) Thankfully, you do not decide when things die. manoj -- Gold, n.: A soft malleable metal relatively scarce in distribution. It is mined deep in the earth by poor men who then give it to rich men who immediately bury it back in the earth in great prisons, although gold hasn't done anything to them. Mike Harding, The Armchair Anarchist's Almanac Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493
Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 01:13:24AM +, Colin Watson wrote: I've just uploaded man-db 2.4.0-11 with the additional text in the error message on an experimental basis; Cool! Go Colin! Yay! I still think that DDs who can't even be bothered to provide at least a *paragraph* worth of man page (with, presumably, a more useful SEE ALSO section) should be severely beaten, but I suppose that's outside the scope of policy. :) cheers -- Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra-osis is too long [EMAIL PROTECTED] | microscopicsilico-to fit into a single or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 08:00:27PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Chris == Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Chris since the discussion period IS NOW UP, the text posted by Chris Manoj to -devel (which incorporates the minor changes) IS Chris INDEED THE FINAL FORM! Well, no, since Colin agreed that editorial changes to the SGML were indeed permissible. I'm sorry, but since you made a point of saying this is not the final form, I assumed you meant that *substantive* changes were still needed. Not fine-tuning to the markup. I have always assumed that policy editors are free to fine-tune the markup when necessary. Chris The decision to forward this to -devel (and to make misleading Chris claims about its status) misleading? See above. Perhaps I merely misinterpreted your statement. Chris he weren't professing his own love for the proposal, I would Chris suspect an underhanded attempt to undermine the proposal for Chris reasons unstated. Chris If I were really paranoid, I'd speculate about why the policy Chris editors ignored the earlier versions of this proposal, which, Chris after much debate, *was accepted*! But I won't go there. You already have. No. I won't deny that these thoughts crossed my mind (as that would be an obvious lie), but I didn't believe them for a second. I'm sorry if I seem a little angry, but this has been dragging on for three years, and I'm tired and frustrated with the topic. Chris But I am perturbed by Manoj's attempt to drag the debate out Chris further when this proposal has been debated to death since Chris June of 1999! And all objections have been answered or Chris addressed. And it has a full complement (more than) of proper Chris seconds already, and no remaining objections. Well, I think because getting input from the general developer body is never a bad idea. I think that major changes in packaging ought to receive wider circulation than just the policy list. I have no problem with that. What major change in packaging did you have in mind? This proposal clearly is not any such thing! * Packages without a man page are buggy. They will continue to be buggy. * Use of undocumented(7) is a bug (it requires an open bug report on file). Use of undocumented(7) will continue to be a bug. This will not prevent anyone from using undocumented(7). If they were willing to live with a buggy package before, they will probably be willing to live with a buggy package afterwards. The only real change is that it's going to be harder for people to *pretend* their packages are bug-free when they lack man pages. Also, because I am more interested in doing the right thing, and looking at the spirit of the consensus building process, rather than being a rules lawyer. You do agree that resolving any flaws we may have overlooked is more important than not missing a deadline, don't you? No, fine, wonderful, nobody has found any flaws in this *trivial* proposal in the *three years* since it was originally proposed, but maybe an extra few days in front of a wider audience will reveal the subtle way in which it can destroy the whole project. And stop being paranoid. I'm not paranoid, I'm tired and frustrated. I was involved in the discussions that lead to the original proposal, I answered people's questions about the proposal during the original discussion period, I went off and browbeat the lintian maintainer into adding a warning about the use of undocumented(7) in order to address someone's reservations. The proposal was already accepted once, and then dropped on the floor (presumably accidentally). Colin noticed, revived it, brought it up-to-date. And I just don't see why this already-accepted-once proposal is being such a big deal. -- Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra-osis is too long [EMAIL PROTECTED] | microscopicsilico-to fit into a single or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
