Hi,
Santiago == Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Santiago On 10 Aug 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
Santiago == Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Santiago If we followed this rule of only object in extreme circumstances,
Santiago we could be drawing circles forever. See:
On 15 Aug 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Santiago == Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Santiago This has not happened in this case. We decided to switch
Santiago from FSSTND to FHS, which includes switching from /usr/doc
Santiago to /usr/share/doc, and nobody objected, so we had a
On 6 Aug 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Remco == Remco Blaakmeer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Remco Then, if this really good scheme is agreed upon, the whole
Remco transition can be done between the potato release and the
Remco release after potato.
In my opinion (looking back
On 10 Aug 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
Santiago == Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Santiago If we followed this rule of only object in extreme circumstances,
Santiago we could be drawing circles forever. See:
On the contrary, if every one objected formally all the
On Tue, Aug 10, 1999 at 02:01:08PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Mon, 9 Aug 1999, Anthony Towns wrote:
[...] formal objections are only appropriate in extreme circumstances.
1. Someone propose to abandon /usr/share/doc in potato and go back to
/usr/doc. Two advocates of using /usr/doc in
Mike Goldman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Furthermore, it is clear that the proposal was not at all serious,
but a measure intended only to buy time.
Excuse me? It was most definitely *both*! And moreover, to give us a
clean release of Potato, and to give us an entire release cycle to get
Woody
On Mon, 9 Aug 1999, Anthony Towns wrote:
[...] formal objections are only appropriate in extreme circumstances.
This is an interesting comment.
I think there are several kinds of policy proposals:
1. Those who add new rules in policy to be followed.
2. Those who modify already existing rules
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
Mike == Mike Goldman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mike Given then a choice between automatically moving all docs back
Mike to /usr/doc or moving all legacy packages to /usr/share/doc, I
Mike would choose the latter, since this is compliant with FHS which
Mike
Chris Waters wrote:
I have a couple of things to say about this proposal. I think
that we have a bad track record when it comes to merely deferring the
issue until a latter date
This proposal defers nothing. It merely mandates a *delay* for the
transition. Granted, it does
[not cc'ed to the bug report]
On Sun, Aug 08, 1999 at 05:04:01PM -0400, Mike Goldman wrote:
Richard Braakman wrote:
Mike Goldman wrote:
Therefore, I formally object to this proposal.
You have given reasons for not liking the proposal, but no reasons for
it being unviable. I think a
Hi,
Chris == Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Secondly, I think that the policy should not hard code release
names
Chris I would call this a serious flaw in policy then.
My opinion is a flaw in policy? ;-)
Chris I think we NEED a way to say, these are the rules for release
I observe that several very large packages have already moved to
/usr/share/doc. Moving them back to /usr/doc will require not
inconsiderable time and inconvenience. This would be in itself not
cause for objection if it were a step forward. However, it is clearly
our goal eventually to have all
Mike Goldman wrote:
Therefore, I formally object to this proposal.
You have given reasons for not liking the proposal, but no reasons for
it being unviable. I think a formal objection is far too strong.
Richard Braakman
Hi,
Mike == Mike Goldman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mike I happen to disagree very much with the symlink proposals I have thus
Mike far seen, as well. While it may be convenient for users to access the
Mike documentation as though it were in /usr/doc, when it had in fact moved,
Mike there is
Richard Braakman wrote:
Mike Goldman wrote:
Therefore, I formally object to this proposal.
You have given reasons for not liking the proposal, but no reasons for
it being unviable. I think a formal objection is far too strong.
I think it is both undesirable and unnecessary, neither by
Hi,
Mike == Mike Goldman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mike Given then a choice between automatically moving all docs back
Mike to /usr/doc or moving all legacy packages to /usr/share/doc, I
Mike would choose the latter, since this is compliant with FHS which
Mike is our eventual goal.
[a second followup to cover one point more accurately, and to add some
details to another]
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have a couple of things to say about this proposal. I think
that we have a bad track record when it comes to merely deferring the
issue until a
At 16:02 -0700 1999-08-04, Chris Waters wrote:
Unlike most other FHS-mandated changes, an inconsistency here will be
*highly* visible, and probably very annoying to our users.
Whatever, they can deal.
It's going to be a while before we can claim FHS compliance in any
case. We have a lot of
Hi,
Chris == Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Chris Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have a couple of things to say about this proposal. I think
that we have a bad track record when it comes to merely deferring the
issue until a latter date (I point to the archive reorg
On Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 03:54:49PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
Wusses. :-)
Huh? What does that mean?
Hasn't anybody ever seen Beavis and Butt-head?
--
G. Branden Robinson |I have a truly elegant proof of the
Debian GNU/Linux |above, but it is too long
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 12:55:46PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
And hey, when it comes down to it, this is just a proposal. My
*primary* goal is to give the tech committee something else to
consider if Manoj *does* send his proposal to them! :-)
I think that with the number of seconds
Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That you consider your proposal primary as an alternative to be
considered by a committee that only steps in if the policy group
fails is also something that worries me a lot.
Well, don't worry then, that's not primary, that's just a backup plan.
A
Hi,
Remco == Remco Blaakmeer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Remco The advantage of this proposal is that it buys time. Time to
Remco come up with a really good transition scheme.
I am not sure that merely postponing the transition is likely
to enable us to come to a conesnsus on a ``really
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have a couple of things to say about this proposal. I think
that we have a bad track record when it comes to merely deferring the
issue until a latter date (I point to the archive reorg issue
Which is a political issue. We're bad at
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.0.1.0
PROPOSAL (0.9): delay the /usr/share/doc transition
ABSTRACT: If we start moving the contents of /usr/doc to
/usr/share/doc at this point, not long before a release, we will
either have to delay the release (in order to bring all packages up to
policy
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 04:02:14PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
+ pFor the release code-named Potato, packages should
+ continue to use /usr/doc instead of the FHS's
+ /usr/share/doc, for consistency. For uploads to
+ Potato (and the earlier
PROPOSAL (0.9): delay the /usr/share/doc transition
+ pFor the release code-named Potato, packages should
+ continue to use /usr/doc instead of the FHS's
+ /usr/share/doc, for consistency. For uploads to
+ Potato (and the earlier Slink),
Julian == Julian Gilbey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
/usr/doc whereever this document refers to + /usr/share/doc./p
Julian Seconded.
Wusses. :-)
netgod
JCommons Debianism [DEH-BEE-IN-ISIM] /n./ An open source (GPL'd)
religion founded on the beliefs of the
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 04:02:14PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
+ pFor the release code-named Potato, packages should
+ continue to use /usr/doc instead of the FHS's
+ /usr/share/doc, for consistency. For uploads to
+
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 04:02:14PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.0.1.0
PROPOSAL (0.9): delay the /usr/share/doc transition
The problem with this is that there are more than 100 packages using
/usr/share/doc already, and there likely will be more. For the
On Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 15:54:49 +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
Wusses. :-)
Huh? What does that mean?
wuss is US slang for wimp or perhaps coward. What netgod probably
means is that this proposal is basically a cop-out, postponing the work
until after potato's release. I agree with that, but
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Chris Waters wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.0.1.0
PROPOSAL (0.9): delay the /usr/share/doc transition
ABSTRACT: If we start moving the contents of /usr/doc to
/usr/share/doc at this point, not long before a release, we will
either have to delay the release
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Chris Waters wrote:
Therefore, I propose that Packages intended for for the distributions
code-named Potato (and Slink) continue to use /usr/doc. This will
ensure that Potato is consistent. Plus, this gives us an entire
release cycle to find a smooth transition path.
On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
wuss is US slang for wimp or perhaps coward. What netgod probably
means is that this proposal is basically a cop-out, postponing the work
until after potato's release. I agree with that, but the powers that be
regrettably do not seem to be on my
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think there are several wrong assumptions here:
Hmm, maybe so. Or at least arguable points. But these were all in
the preamble, not in the proposal itself. The proposal was a pretty
simple statement. :-)
1. Today is not long before a release.
Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 04:02:14PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
PROPOSAL (0.9): delay the /usr/share/doc transition
The problem with this is that there are more than 100 packages using
/usr/share/doc already, and there likely will be more.
I've got
On Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 05:14:37PM +0200, J.H.M. Dassen Ray wrote:
Wusses. :-)
Huh? What does that mean?
wuss is US slang for wimp or perhaps coward. What netgod probably
means is that this proposal is basically a cop-out, postponing the work
until after potato's release. I agree
37 matches
Mail list logo
