Bug#442029: Opencity & policy: violates 9.1 & 10.7 MUSTs

Fri Sep 14 06:31:53 UTC 2007

severity 442029 normal
thanks

Thanasis Kinias <tkinias at kinias.org> (13/09/2007):
> > | AUTHORS -- doesn't ship, must be in $(DOCDIR)
> > Must? What about the copyright file?
> 
> (1) sorry, that wasn't as clear as it should have been.  It doesn't
> ship, and it's not clear why -- that's a minor bug, yes -- but if it
> _does_ ship it _must_ be in $(DOCDIR):
> [snip]
> There are no relevant exceptions regarding the location of
> documentation files.

It is not shipped, stop arguing about non-existing problem.

> > | README, TODO -- don't ship, must be in $(DOCDIR)
> > See Policy 12.3 again. What violation is that?
> 
> (3) The README file is the primary documentation for the package.  Not
> shipping it is at least Important `a bug which has a major effect on
> the usability of a package, without rendering it completely unusable
> to everyone' -- the package is not unusable to anyone who reads
> Italian (a small minority of users) or who goes and downloads the
> upstream package to get this file (not a reasonable expectation for an
> end user) if not Grave `makes the package unusable or mostly so').  If
> installed (see [1] above) it _must_ be in $(DOCDIR).

Accessing upstream's site is a less reasonable expectation than reading
documentation under /usr/share/doc? I guess you've already handled many
clueless users unable who can't even read README.Debian or NEWS.Debian,
haven't you?

Also, I didn't say anything about downloading usptream's tarball, or
“apt-get source”ing the package, but rather spoke about the help one can
find online, that is: the “Game guide”[1] on the left bar on the
homepage[2].

 1. http://www.opencity.info/guide.php
 2. http://www.opencity.info/

BTW, Debian doesn't require any README file to be shipped, rather
recommends (or higher) binaries to be documented through manpages.
Poiting to this file from the existing one (which looks like needing
attention), or including (parts of) its content, would be good, I agree.

Also, stop arguing about should be done *if* this or that file were
shipped. It is not (right now). Fullstop.

> > | config/* -- ship in $(DATADIR)/config; must be in $(CONFDIR)
> > Not if it is not meant to be modified by the local admin. That
> > configuration files, although in a directory called “config” can be
> > static data. What violation is that, then?
> 
> These files _are_ meant to be modified by the local admin; they are
> the program's configuration files. Putting them under /usr violates
> 9.1 (not following FHS, a `must') and 10.7 (not putting config files
> under /etc, also a `must').  A Serious bug means violating a `must'
> policy.

I'm not sure you want to modify the following:
,---[ config/graphism.conf excerpt ]---
| #=====================>    Residential model files <======================
| 10=graphism/residential/r_zone/r_zone.ac
| 11=graphism/residential/little_house/little_house.ac
| 12=graphism/residential/easybuilding/easybuilding.ac
| 13=graphism/residential/family/family.ac
`---

IMVHO, that doesn't fit into the following context:
,---[ 10.7.1 Definitions - configuration file ]---
| A file that affects the operation of a program, or provides site- or
| host-specific information, or otherwise customizes the behavior of a
| program. Typically, configuration files are intended to be modified by
| the system administrator (if needed or desired) to conform to local
| policy or to provide more useful site-specific behavior.
`---

I however agree that some values of the config/opencity.conf, like
FullScreen, UseAudio, and MsPerFrame could be kept as default there, and
overridable through /etc/opencity.conf, and/or on a per-user basis using
a dot file, or using a commandline argument. But it is not *that*
obvious to me that it fits the context defined just above.

> > | docs/* -- ship in $(DATADIR)/docs; must be in $(DOCDIR)
> > Policy 12.3 againt, must != should.
> 
> No, Policy 9.1, a `must'.  FHS is very clear about where documentation
> files go.  It is _also_ a violation of 12.3 `should', but the `must'
> obligation to follow FHS would make that largely irrelevant.

Yes, it is so very clear that you didn't quote it. I'll do.

,---[ /usr/share : Architecture-independent data ]---
| Any program or package which contains or requires data that doesn't
| need to be modified should store that data in /usr/share (or
| /usr/local/share, if installed locally). It is recommended that a
| subdirectory be used in /usr/share for this purpose.
`---

,---[ Specific Options ]---
| …
| doc	Miscellaneous documentation (optional)
| …
| It is recommended that application-specific, architecture-independent
| directories be placed here.
`---

Again, a recommendation isn't a requirement. We end up again with a
“should”. No violation again.

> > How many policy violations remain?
> 
> 9.1, 10.7, 12.3

None.

> A) The English-language documentation is not shipped.  This is not a
> policy violation per se, as 12.3 says additional documentation MAY be
> installed.  It is, however, an (at least) Important bug as it renders
> the program more-or-less unusable without going upstream to get the
> documentation.

I never nevegated it is correct not to ship it, but I still disagree not
doing so makes it more-or-less unusable.

> M. Brulebois's comment that if I can read FHS I should be able to go
> look upstream for docs is just insulting;

It seems I made an error assuming “And using a search engine to find a
bit of documentation […]”, since you seem to only understand it as
grabbing upstream's tarball.

Also, I find your attitude towards -mentors (mostly towards Neil),
and -games, just insulting. You also seem to feel persecuted rather
quickly. Just stop being paranioac, you'll just leave longer.

> while I'm (obviously) quite capable of fixing the bugs myself, that is
> irrelevant to whether the bugs exist.

It is apparently very relevant to the assertion you make about people
being totally clueless and unable to look for basic help on upstream
website…

> B) The Italian-language documentation and the (English) FAQ are
> shipped, but in an incorrect location.  This violates 9.1 (MUST follow
> FHS, which says that documentation, if installed, MUST go at
> /usr/share/doc) and 12.3 (SHOULD put docs at /usr/share/doc).

Again, I don't deny there is a bug, but that's no violation at all.

> C) The configuration files are not installed under /etc.  This
> violates 9.1 (MUST follow FHS, which says config in /etc) and 10.7
> (MUST put configuration files in /etc).

That's is still debatable, see above. Do you want us to also put bitmaps
and so on under /etc so that the local administrator can modify them?

-- 
Cyril Brulebois
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-games-devel/attachments/20070914/7e623fd3/attachment-0001.pgp 