Your message dated Sat, 18 Aug 2001 23:28:24 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Closed by debian-policy version 3.5.6.0
has caused the attached Bug report 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 I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 21 May 2001 18:50:48 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon May 21 13:50:48 2001
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mail6.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.206] 
        by master.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
        id 151ulU-0003Fc-00; Mon, 21 May 2001 13:50:48 -0500
Received: (qmail 21110 invoked from network); 21 May 2001 18:48:50 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO starless.xtnet) ([66.92.4.139]) (envelope-sender 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
          by mail6.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
          for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 21 May 2001 18:48:50 -0000
Received: from xtifr by starless.xtnet with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian))
        id 151ue4-0002Sf-00
        for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 21 May 2001 11:43:08 -0700
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:43:08 -0700
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: being truthful about the FHS and us
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.17i
X-Zelazny-Quote: "Then the fit hit the shan."
From: Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.4.0
Severity: wishlist

There is a bit of a glaring bug in policy.  An earlier attempt to
address this was made in #60461, but it seems like people found that
one confusing, and there has been no progress on it.  This proposal is
intended to supersede #60461, which never got any seconds, and only a
couple of comments from Wichert -- supporting arguments which appear
to be intended as objections, which suggests that the proposal was
unclear.

Right.  I'll try to be clear.  (Plus, I'm going to propose a smaller,
simpler patch.)

The Problem:

Policy says packages "must comply" with the FHS.  The FHS says
"compliant" means "every requirement in this standard is met".
Period.  Any package which did that would be violating Debian policy!
(See, just for example, the /usr/doc symlinks.)  Yet any package that
doesn't is also violating policy!

What we want, as most of you probably know, is to be compatible, not
compliant.  From the FHS:

  "An implementation is fully compatible with this standard if every file
  or directory which it contains can be found by looking in the location
  specified here and will be found with the contents as specified here,
  even if that is not the primary or physical location of the file or
  directory in question."

(It goes on to state that "compatible" is a synonym for "fully
compatible".)

Furthermore, as Wichert points out in his comments to #60461, we would
probably like to reserve some wiggle room, just in case.  Thus, I
suggest we change the "must" to "should".

The Proposal (the patch):

--- debian-policy.sgml~ Mon May 21 10:45:51 2001
+++ debian-policy.sgml  Mon May 21 10:54:35 2001
@@ -3982,8 +3982,8 @@
          <heading>Linux File system Structure</heading>
 
          <p>
-           The location of all installed files and directories must
-           comply  with the Linux File system Hierarchy Standard
+           The location of all installed files and directories should
+           be compatible with the Linux File system Hierarchy Standard
            (FHS).  The latest version of this document can be found
            alongside this manual or on
            <url id="http://www.pathname.com/fhs/";>.


Final comments:

This still works if we leave the "must" as "must".  Either way is
fine.  (Plus, it becomes a one-line patch, which is always nifty.)

This really is a technical bug in policy.  One of those "perfect" Star
Trek computers would probably explode if asked to process the policy
document today.  Worse yet, claiming compliance is a blatant lie to
our users.  So, I would really like to fast-track this proposal before
we freeze.

We can fine tune things later -- this is a bug fix.

If you really, really prefer "must" to "should", you can say so in
your second, and if the majority of seconds say so, then we'll leave
"must".

We need this now, please second.

cheers

-- 
Chris Waters           |  Pneumonoultra-        osis is too long
[EMAIL PROTECTED]       |  microscopicsilico-    to fit into a single
or [EMAIL PROTECTED] |  volcaniconi-          standalone haiku

---------------------------------------
Received: (at 60461-done) by bugs.debian.org; 18 Aug 2001 22:28:41 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 18 17:28:41 2001
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from (mserv1b.vianw.co.uk) [195.102.249.202] 
        by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
        id 15YEa8-0007Ga-00; Sat, 18 Aug 2001 17:28:40 -0500
Received: from [195.102.196.54] (helo=polya)
        by mserv1b.vianw.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #5)
        id 15YEZz-0000d9-00; Sat, 18 Aug 2001 23:28:32 +0100
Received: from jdg by polya with local (Exim 3.31 #1 (Debian))
        id 15YEZu-00023i-00; Sat, 18 Aug 2001 23:28:26 +0100
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 23:28:24 +0100
From: Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
        [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
        [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
        [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
        [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Closed by debian-policy version 3.5.6.0
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

These bugs were closed by debian-policy 3.5.6.0.  Here is the
.changes file.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Format: 1.7
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 21:43:22 -0500
Source: debian-policy
Binary: debian-policy
Architecture: source all
Version: 3.5.6.0 
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian Policy List <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>
Changed-By: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Description:
 debian-policy - Debian Policy Manual and related documents
Closes: 53849 60461 72335 98291 100631 102199 102204 105535 105538 105625
Changes:
 debian-policy (3.5.6.0) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * Change footnote about urgency values to the now-current list: low,
     medium, high, emergency.
   * Correct note about /etc/default files being conffiles/config files,
     which I mucked up (sorry Joey) [10.3.2]
   * [AMENDMENT 2001/06/26] Downgrade emacs/tex to optional
                                                   closes: Bug#102204, Bug#53849
   * [AMENDMENT 2001/06/26] Next stage in usr/doc -> usr/share/doc transition
                                                              closes: Bug#102199
 .
   * [AMENDMENT 09/06/2001] Clarifying FHS policy   closes: Bug#98291, Bug#60461
   * Spelling correction                                      closes: Bug#105625
   * [AMMENDMENT 28/06/2001] Restrict http access to /usr/share/doc
                                                              closes: Bug#100631
   * [AMENDMENT 23/5/2001] Optional build-arch and build-indep targets for
     debian/rules                                             closes: Bug#72335
   * The old packaging manual is included in the policy document as an 
     informative appendix. It is not part of Debian Technical Policy, and
     its presence is a temporary measure until dpkg documentation includes
     ther information provided.                               closes: Bug#105535
   * Added information about optional blank lines in the chagelog format.
                                                              closes: Bug#105538
Files:
 d0a1ac17a579422cf3036a91018077db 727 doc optional debian-policy_3.5.6.0.dsc
 847698fb56a4015e8c01fff6e2549979 568045 doc optional 
debian-policy_3.5.6.0.tar.gz
 1c021ad67e4ca6c516ed92abf7194626 582528 doc optional 
debian-policy_3.5.6.0_all.deb
 9b36b824c66c396e6755932b2abc892d 91261 byhand - policy.txt.gz
 2930900bdf8160ce69a088a56af4cace 2138 byhand - menu-policy.txt.gz
 a3da1fbfdf72eca7b027057891e0a4cb 1561 byhand - mime-policy.txt.gz
 1d2430875f883293167d7485e9c6ff7f 4417 byhand - policy-process.txt.gz  
 2a62f4ed486185ba2d4dd8f9f1025e6d 4357 byhand - perl-policy.txt.gz
 2b8ceb66219172f7cb2a34bff5a395d0 99749 byhand - policy.html.tar.gz
 12c50aaf21b5607813d05eca35a75750 2759 byhand - menu-policy.html.tar.gz
 44838568cf22562f1669015d1dabfe76 2115 byhand - mime-policy.html.tar.gz  
 368690344dcee1495139ff6fff5fea81 5063 byhand - policy-process.html.tar.gz
 340c2df7326f04027844bac805c25cb6 5563 byhand - perl-policy.html.tar.gz
 4ec1bcd43a2c9f9981d2bc08dafb48ae 6120 byhand - debconf_specification.txt.gz
 753ce321854a513ff0cb3b279e548a1f 29941 byhand - debconf_specification.html
 3ed7aa5a489834b24bb28ff377a34aa9 10982 byhand - libc6-migration.txt
 b9ffc0d13d1467967d994288c4adc29b 7686 byhand - virtual-package-names-list.txt
 999105364cf441d21bb979469db2abba 174680 byhand - policy.ps.gz
 09e7a1c8473e068617d8b41a85612414 316812 byhand - policy.pdf.gz
 ebe19e49d89eb9edad98b9e6d3fc886e 16014 byhand - upgrading-checklist.txt
 93679f707ec4cbc94b6f667afb1f2600 34997 byhand - fhs-2.1.html.tar.gz
 300035e9df1e7fa8295a38fee2cf54c6 98312 byhand - fhs.txt

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE7Xk+gIbrau78kQkwRAVMzAKCXOT7MSdSx5647GudbFBmJHFzo6wCeKFkL
qC1x2fxjus05sb+yppI5IKQ=
=2C5w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


   Julian

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

         Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
       Debian GNU/Linux Developer,  see http://people.debian.org/~jdg
  Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/

Reply via email to