Bug#170019: debian-policy: Ambiguity in section 11.7.2 (Configuration files: Location)
Package: debian-policy Version: 3.5.6.1 Severity: normal Tags: patch I am not able to coherently interpret the following text: Any configuration files created or used by your package must reside in /etc. If there are several you should consider creating a subdirectory of /etc named after your package. If your package creates or uses configuration files outside of /etc, and it is not feasible to modify the package to use the /etc, you should still put the files in /etc and create symbolic links to those files from the location that the package requires. So if a package maintainer fails to create symbolic links from /usr/lib to /etc, is it a should or a must violation? Anyway, what are the criteria for conforming to should consider? Here is a trivial patch which changes the wording so that it is internally consistent. I am not sure if this is a happy solution, since it is quite possible that package maintainers have decided to interpret the text as a mere recommendation, in which case they would now suddenly find themselves in violation of policy although they may have tried hard not to violate it. /* era */ See #170018 for a fresh example. *** debian-policy-3.5.6.1.orig/policy.sgml Thu Mar 14 20:17:48 2002 --- debian-policy-3.5.6.1/policy.sgml Thu Nov 21 10:18:50 2002 *** *** 5823,5835 p Any configuration files created or used by your package must reside in tt/etc/tt. If there are several you ! should consider creating a subdirectory of tt/etc/tt named after your package./p p If your package creates or uses configuration files outside of tt/etc/tt, and it is not feasible to modify ! the package to use the tt/etc/tt, you should still put the files in tt/etc/tt and create symbolic links to those files from the location that the package requires./p --- 5823,5835 p Any configuration files created or used by your package must reside in tt/etc/tt. If there are several you ! should create a subdirectory of tt/etc/tt named after your package./p p If your package creates or uses configuration files outside of tt/etc/tt, and it is not feasible to modify ! the package to use the tt/etc/tt, you must still put the files in tt/etc/tt and create symbolic links to those files from the location that the package requires./p -- System Information Debian Release: 3.0 Kernel Version: Linux there.afraid.org 2.2.20 #1 SMP Thu Nov 7 16:15:53 EET 2002 i586 unknown Versions of the packages debian-policy depends on: ii fileutils 4.1-10 GNU file management utilities
Bug#170019: debian-policy: Ambiguity in section 11.7.2 (Configuration files: Location)
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, era eriksson wrote: --- 5823,5835 p Any configuration files created or used by your package must reside in tt/etc/tt. If there are several you ! should create a subdirectory of tt/etc/tt named after your package./p I object to this change. It changes policy way too much. Given that we also have packages that need to scatter files throughout /etc SUB-directories, it is an incomplete change anyway. p If your package creates or uses configuration files outside of tt/etc/tt, and it is not feasible to modify ! the package to use the tt/etc/tt, you must still put the files in tt/etc/tt and create symbolic links to those files from the location that the package requires./p I second this change. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh pgppFrzM85wz2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#170019: debian-policy: Ambiguity in section 11.7.2 (Configuration files: Location)
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 10:24:18AM +0200, era eriksson wrote: So if a package maintainer fails to create symbolic links from /usr/lib to /etc, is it a should or a must violation? That's not a policy violation at all. OTOH, if the program breaks because of it, normal bug severity rules apply. Anyway, what are the criteria for conforming to should consider? That there are several files to be put in /etc/, and that one wishes to think about it. If it's two files, and no further increase in perspective, then it's probably not necessary. If there are five and more to come, then it's probably necessary. *** debian-policy-3.5.6.1.orig/policy.sgmlThu Mar 14 20:17:48 2002 --- debian-policy-3.5.6.1/policy.sgml Thu Nov 21 10:18:50 2002 *** *** 5823,5835 p Any configuration files created or used by your package must reside in tt/etc/tt. If there are several you ! should consider creating a subdirectory of tt/etc/tt named after your package./p p If your package creates or uses configuration files outside of tt/etc/tt, and it is not feasible to modify ! the package to use the tt/etc/tt, you should still put the files in tt/etc/tt and create symbolic links to those files from the location that the package requires./p --- 5823,5835 p Any configuration files created or used by your package must reside in tt/etc/tt. If there are several you ! should create a subdirectory of tt/etc/tt named after your package./p p If your package creates or uses configuration files outside of tt/etc/tt, and it is not feasible to modify ! the package to use the tt/etc/tt, you must still put the files in tt/etc/tt and create symbolic links to those files from the location that the package requires./p I'd have preferred a unified diff, but nevertheless... :) The first change removes the option and makes having = 2 files directly in /etc/ a normal bug. You need seconds for that. The second change makes it consistent as far as the first clause is concerned, but then it also mandates the symlinks. This makes it confusing again. :) I'd just take the should in the second sentence as overridden by the must in the one in the previous paragraph. Its relation to the second clause is pretty much implied -- you should do this if you don't want your package to break. Frankly, it should be enough to simply mandate /etc for all configuration files, I don't know why we keep this exception for other directories. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Bug#170019: debian-policy: Ambiguity in section 11.7.2 (Configuration files: Location)
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 12:40:32PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: Frankly, it should be enough to simply mandate /etc for all configuration files, I don't know why we keep this exception for other directories. Technically, it's enough to mandate /etc, but suggesting the use of symlinks from /usr might make life a bit easier for some maintainers who are aghast at the thought of rewriting upstream to use /etc natively. *cough*143825*cough* Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
Bug#170019: debian-policy: Ambiguity in section 11.7.2 (Configuration files: Location)
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 12:40:32PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 10:24:18AM +0200, era eriksson wrote:
So if a package maintainer fails to create symbolic links from
/usr/lib to /etc, is it a should or a must violation?
That's not a policy violation at all. OTOH, if the program breaks because of
it, normal bug severity rules apply.
Anyway, what are the criteria for conforming to should consider?
That there are several files to be put in /etc/, and that one wishes to
think about it.
If it's two files, and no further increase in perspective, then it's
probably not necessary. If there are five and more to come, then it's
probably necessary.
The confusion here probably stems from the use of the word should,
which has magic connotations in policy. I suggest rewriting it like
this ('should' changed to the synonymous 'ought'; typographical, so
I'll leave it to the discretion of the editors):
Any configuration files created or used by your package
must reside in tt/etc/tt. If there are several you
ought to consider creating a subdirectory of tt/etc/tt
named after your package./p
*** debian-policy-3.5.6.1.orig/policy.sgml Thu Mar 14 20:17:48 2002
***
*** 5823,5835
p
Any configuration files created or used by your package
must reside in tt/etc/tt. If there are several you
! should consider creating a subdirectory of tt/etc/tt
named after your package./p
p
If your package creates or uses configuration files
outside of tt/etc/tt, and it is not feasible to modify
! the package to use the tt/etc/tt, you should still put
the files in tt/etc/tt and create symbolic links to
those files from the location that the package
requires./p
p
Any configuration files created or used by your package
must reside in tt/etc/tt. If there are several you
! should create a subdirectory of tt/etc/tt
named after your package./p
p
If your package creates or uses configuration files
outside of tt/etc/tt, and it is not feasible to modify
! the package to use the tt/etc/tt, you must still put
the files in tt/etc/tt and create symbolic links to
those files from the location that the package
requires./p
The second change makes it consistent as far as the first clause is
concerned, but then it also mandates the symlinks. This makes it confusing
again. :)
How about this one?
If your package creates or uses configuration files
outside of tt/etc/tt, and it is not feasible to modify
the package to use the tt/etc/tt, you must still put
the files in tt/etc/tt. You may need to create symbolic links to
those files from the location that the package
requires./p
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
`. `' | Imperial College,
`- -- | London, UK
pgporbL9WqFuY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Bug#170019: debian-policy: Ambiguity in section 11.7.2 (Configuration files: Location)
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 10:39:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 12:40:32PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: Frankly, it should be enough to simply mandate /etc for all configuration files, I don't know why we keep this exception for other directories. Technically, it's enough to mandate /etc, but suggesting the use of symlinks from /usr might make life a bit easier for some maintainers who are aghast at the thought of rewriting upstream to use /etc natively. *cough*143825*cough* *cough*Patches welcome.*cough* -- G. Branden Robinson|You should try building some of the Debian GNU/Linux |stuff in main that is [EMAIL PROTECTED] |modern...turning on -Wall is like http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |turning on the pain. -- James Troup pgpPrHiiycDUH.pgp Description: PGP signature
