Re: packages still setting /usr/doc link
On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 05:55:28PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > The following is a list by maintainer of the 497 packages that still > contain code in their postinst to create links in /usr/doc/. That's been > a bug since 2002, and most of these packages have probably not been > updated since then, since recompiling most of them with a current > debhelper will remove the link code. > > Please fix your packages. Filing bugs on nearly 500 packages is > something I'd prefer not to do, but it might come to that. We've been > working on this transition for 5 or 6 years now, and it's about time to > finish it. > michael d. ivey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >id3ren > > -- > see shy jo Hi DD's, just a thought. If during a transition it became necessary to do X as a workaround for package Y, why not make a bug which is marked as non-RC during the transition and then upgraded to RC after the transition. This way each packages that has this workaround does not have to be checked by hand and then simply by changing the bug status, all packages are upgraded to have the RC bug. This may already have been done, I reading these emails offline. Cheers, Kev -- counter.li.org #238656 -- goto counter.li.org and be counted! `$' $' $ $ _ ,d$$$g$ ,d$$$b. $,d$$$b`$' g$b $,d$$b ,$P' `$ ,$P' `Y$ $$' `$ $ "' `$ $$' `$ $$ $ $$g$ $ $ $ ,$P"" $ $$ `$g. ,$$ `$$._ _. $ _,g$P $ `$b. ,$$ $$ `Y$$P'$. `YP $$$P"' ,$. `Y$$P'$ $. ,$. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: packages still setting /usr/doc link
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 05:00:05PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Andrew Pollock > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 01:19:34AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > > > > Some of these packages have been orphaned, but have not yet had their > > > maintainer fields switched to QA. > > > There's only 30 odd packages currently listed at > > http://qa.debian.org/orphaned.html, and I progressively work through > > that list in my copious amounts of spare time, > > I was not complaining, merely pointing out that the maintainers in > Joey's list are not always the only ones who need to care about the > problem. Sorry if it came out looking like criticism. > Not at all. I'm just saying that the 30 odd packages currently officially orphaned don't contribute to a large percentage of the offending packages. regards Andrew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: packages still setting /usr/doc link
Scripsit Andrew Pollock > On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 01:19:34AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > > Some of these packages have been orphaned, but have not yet had their > > maintainer fields switched to QA. > There's only 30 odd packages currently listed at > http://qa.debian.org/orphaned.html, and I progressively work through > that list in my copious amounts of spare time, I was not complaining, merely pointing out that the maintainers in Joey's list are not always the only ones who need to care about the problem. Sorry if it came out looking like criticism. -- Henning Makholm "`Update' isn't a bad word; in the right setting it is useful. In the wrong setting, though, it is destructive..." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: packages still setting /usr/doc link
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 01:19:34AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > The following is a list by maintainer of the 497 packages that still > > contain code in their postinst to create links in /usr/doc/. > > Some of these packages have been orphaned, but have not yet had their > maintainer fields switched to QA. > There's only 30 odd packages currently listed at http://qa.debian.org/orphaned.html, and I progressively work through that list in my copious amounts of spare time, so as long as Jeroen sits on his hands for a couple of weeks, in theory I'd have that whittled down to about half a dozen hard cases. regards Andrew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: packages still setting /usr/doc link
Joey Hess wrote: > >Please fix your packages. Filing bugs on nearly 500 packages is >something I'd prefer not to do, but it might come to that. We've been >working on this transition for 5 or 6 years now, and it's about time to >finish it. >Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > mimedecode > motifnls > s3mod Oops, thanks for the reminder on these. They've not needed uploads in a while, hence still had the /usr/doc stuff. s3mod is now removed from unstable, motifnls and mimedecode are both updated. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED] Who needs computer imagery when you've got Brian Blessed? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: packages still setting /usr/doc link
Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > Please fix your packages. Filing bugs on nearly 500 packages is > > something I'd prefer not to do > > Why do you have filled bug reports, then? Only for my packages? > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=322813 > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=322749 I filed bugs on some issues that were personally annoying to me (since they are the only reason I have the /usr/doc directory on some systems). -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: packages still setting /usr/doc link
Scripsit Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Henning Makholm wrote: >> I agree that it *should* be a bug, but I cannot see that it officially >> *has* been one for three years. > You're right. However, I think it's past time to change policy and make > it a bug. Agreed. -- Henning Makholm "And here we could talk about the Plato's Cave thing for a while---the Veg-O-Matic of metaphors---it slices! it dices!" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: packages still setting /usr/doc link
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > Please fix your packages. Filing bugs on nearly 500 packages is > something I'd prefer not to do Why do you have filled bug reports, then? Only for my packages? http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=322813 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=322749 I btw agree that we should fix policy, too. Gruss Bernd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: packages still setting /usr/doc link
Henning Makholm wrote: > > That's been a bug since 2002, > > Huh? The closest I can find in policy is a footnote reading: > > | At this phase of the transition, we no longer require a symbolic > | link in /usr/doc/. At a later point, policy shall change to make the > | symbolic links a bug. > > I agree that it *should* be a bug, but I cannot see that it officially > *has* been one for three years. You're right. However, I think it's past time to change policy and make it a bug. The orignal plans had that happening for the sarge release actually. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: packages still setting /usr/doc link
On 15/08/05, Nico Golde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > * Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-15 00:49]: > > The following is a list by maintainer of the 497 packages that still > > contain code in their postinst to create links in /usr/doc/. That's been > > a bug since 2002, and most of these packages have probably not been > > updated since then, since recompiling most of them with a current > > debhelper will remove the link code. > > > > Please fix your packages. Filing bugs on nearly 500 packages is > > something I'd prefer not to do, but it might come to that. We've been > > working on this transition for 5 or 6 years now, and it's about time to > > finish it. > > > > See bug #322762 for some more info. > > [...] > > Bradley Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >scandetd > > [...] > I checked scandetd, it seems that it reffers to a very old > version of the policy.. 3.1.1 > Don't know if in the paths in this policy and the FHS were > different. > But it seems that the scandetd as some other bugs (including > an easy to fix FTBFS). Does someone know if Bradley Alexander > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is active? Otherwise I will provide an > NMU. > Regards Nico # 1625 days old (needed 10 days) # Removal request by djpig # Trying to remove package, not update it (From packages.qa.debian.org) > -- > Nico Golde - JAB: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG: 0x73647CFF > http://www.ngolde.de | http://www.muttng.org | http://grml.org > VIM has two modes - the one in which it beeps > and the one in which it doesn't -- encrypted mail preferred > > > -- N Jones Proud Debian & FOSS User Debian Maintainer of: html2ps, ipkungfu, dvorak7min & windowlab
Re: packages still setting /usr/doc link
Hi, * Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-15 00:49]: > The following is a list by maintainer of the 497 packages that still > contain code in their postinst to create links in /usr/doc/. That's been > a bug since 2002, and most of these packages have probably not been > updated since then, since recompiling most of them with a current > debhelper will remove the link code. > > Please fix your packages. Filing bugs on nearly 500 packages is > something I'd prefer not to do, but it might come to that. We've been > working on this transition for 5 or 6 years now, and it's about time to > finish it. > > See bug #322762 for some more info. [...] > Bradley Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >scandetd [...] I checked scandetd, it seems that it reffers to a very old version of the policy.. 3.1.1 Don't know if in the paths in this policy and the FHS were different. But it seems that the scandetd as some other bugs (including an easy to fix FTBFS). Does someone know if Bradley Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is active? Otherwise I will provide an NMU. Regards Nico -- Nico Golde - JAB: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG: 0x73647CFF http://www.ngolde.de | http://www.muttng.org | http://grml.org VIM has two modes - the one in which it beeps and the one in which it doesn't -- encrypted mail preferred pgpWs7RpgN3eF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: packages still setting /usr/doc link
Scripsit Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The following is a list by maintainer of the 497 packages that still > contain code in their postinst to create links in /usr/doc/. Some of these packages have been orphaned, but have not yet had their maintainer fields switched to QA. > That's been a bug since 2002, Huh? The closest I can find in policy is a footnote reading: | At this phase of the transition, we no longer require a symbolic | link in /usr/doc/. At a later point, policy shall change to make the | symbolic links a bug. I agree that it *should* be a bug, but I cannot see that it officially *has* been one for three years. > Brian Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >bibtool >gnushogi >netcdf >netcdf-perl >xruskb For example, all of these packages are orphaned by QA, as Brian seems to be MIA. I'm working on adopting bibtool, and the next upload will remove the /usr/doc symlink (as the current package is not debhelperized, and its handcrafted prerm script helpfully leaves the symlink untouched when $1=upgrade :-/). Some of the others are still in O state rather than ITA. -- Henning Makholm"We can hope that this serious deficiency will be remedied in the final version of BibTeX, 1.0, which is expected to appear when the LaTeX 3.0 development is completed." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
