Re: Vanishing /usr/doc symlink
Joey Hess wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > The original plan said that base-files would still contain it. Otherwise
> > > we're in the situation where upgrades from potato will have /usr/doc but
> > > new installs of woody won't, which in turn means that the script that
> > > will remove symlinks from inside /usr/doc and migrate to a single
> > > /usr/doc -> /usr/share/doc symlink won't be as well tested as it should
> > > be.
> > What you call the original plan was only a "possibility" and it's not
> > part of policy (which, btw, is frozen).
> That is a striking peice of revisionist history. What you call only a
> "possiblity" was arrived at after long and tortuous discussion here and
> by the technical committee.
I was referring to the particular item suggesting base-files should do
such and such, not to the plan as a whole.
[ I think such a script, if we absolutely need it, belongs to dpkg,
not base-files ].