seriously wrong pathes in FAI and #230217

[Holger Levsen]

Hi,

Manoj is  Manoj Srivastava <srivasta at debian.org>, h01ger is me.

from #debian-devel on OFTC:

<h01ger> Manoj, any comment on #230217 ?
<Manoj> h01ger: well, we need to come up with language that spell out which 
(perhaps optional) parts of FHS 2.3 are to be ignored by debian packages, and 
then change the recommendation. No one is stopping you from using FHS 2.3 
today, really
<-- dancerjBO has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
<h01ger> Manoj, but how should one read current policy that a newer version of 
FHS is right to use ? and more importantly, doesnt that bug list all problems 
with FHS 2.3 ?
<Manoj> h01ger: whenever things in policy are to change, some packages do so 
in advance of policy
<h01ger> ic
<Manoj> indeed, in general, that is good, since then we can learn of any 
errors in a proposed scheme, and policy can then recommend the best practice, 
one which has actually been known to work
<Manoj> h01ger: the only time not sticking with policy makes a difference, in 
practical terms, is release tiem, and you should talk to policy editors and 
release people to see when being ahead of the times is OK. I think it is, I 
should have uplaoded a new version of policy earlier, but my health has not 
been what it ought to be
<Manoj> but since policy is team maintained, it has been less well maintained, 
this is the weakness of team maintained packages :)
<dato> heh.
<huggie> Eep, I thought we left the trolls on lists?
<h01ger> Manoj, i'll forward this conversation to the fai maintainer (who 
wants to wait with fixing his bugs til this is decided) and tell him he 
should go for FHS2.3 (releaseteam people have spoken in favor of this 
regarding those fai bugs) - thanks.
<Manoj> h01ger: thanks. If someome could read the bug report, look at my 
objections, and the conclusions we reached there, and come up with a 
paragraph that says that, for one thing, debian package need to not pay 
attention to the dotfil optional stuff, and we are going to ignore the name 
of the X configuration file, etc, it would help


regards,
	Holger

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.uni-koeln.de/pipermail/linux-fai-devel/attachments/20060205/c171f5e9/attachment.bin