Bug#40706: AMENDMENT 17/7/99] /usr/share/doc vs. /usr/doc transition
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:
> PROPOSAL: Easing the transition from `/usr/doc' to `/usr/share/doc'
[...]
> During the transition, we need to provide backwards compatibility,
> firstly for programs ike `dwww', and `dhelp', and also for our users
> who have gotten used to looking under a single dir (`/usr/doc/') for
> docs (`/usr/doc/`package''). During the transition, the
> documentation could be in in two places, and that is not good
Programs like dwww and dhelp will already have to be modified to look
in both places, since users may have a mixture of old and new packages
installed even after we make the transition to policy 4.x.
Which leaves the "user is used to '/usr/doc'" objection, which is a
*purely* aesthetic objection, not a technical one.
> I understand that the forest of symlinks is ugly, but it is
> technically sound,
No, it is not. It consumes unnecessary resources (inodes, directory
entries), and can cause severe problems if there are more than some
small number (five, I believe) of pending symlink lookups. This is
not an area where the kernel is outstandingly robust.
Granted, the latter is unlikely to come up in practice, but it *is* a
genuine potential technical problem with this proposal. And the
former is a very real issue, even an important one to some people.
This proposal may be more *aesthetically* pleasing than a
gradual-migration without symlinks, but it is NOT better in a
technical sense -- it is worse.
I know of *no* such technical problems with the simple migration,
package-by-package, with no symlinks involved, solution.
> I submit that aesthetics takes a back seat to functionality.
If so, then you should withdraw this proposal.
For now, I am formally objecting to this proposal. I am not adamant;
I am open to debate. I actually prefer the aesthetics of this
proposal, but it *is* technically inferior, and I am angry that it is
being promoted as technically superior.
I would *very* much like to see some other proposals on the table.
Personally, I would rather have dpkg (or maybe base-files?) be in
charge of placing the doc directories in the appropriate place at the
appropriate time. I realize that there are *political* problems with
this idea, but I think it is both technically *and* aesthetically
superior to gradual migration, package-by-package, with or without
symlinks. I think it is *very* possible to come up with a better
proposal which actually works. But I'm not making one myself, as it
requires more effort than I want to spend at the moment.
So, if no better proposals come forth, and it becomes clear that
people *do* understand that this particular proposal *is* a
technically inferior one, but the general consensus is that the
aesthetics are more important, then I'll probably be willing to
withdraw my objection. But not until then.
cheers
- --
Chris Waters xtifr@dsp.net | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or xtifr@debian.org | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.1, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQCVAwUBN5PI1TZs0/7rwRsBAQG4HgQAnrltJZtnWFiuvzRSb3MXKfs+L1hJv/Tz
PIxpzhVaUicJAE09u9pdqr+r+1Em85XyztQppTMKIfc5Pl72x9u0dSJNv50UN4TO
6arflKfmhRyXGWEl2TgvHi/DUf0YAMCJQqf9BLUgRPSjCH5YCuml/bF4zkF3Ch0q
ZPIS33CiHD8=
=8q9I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: