Re: Ballot update (was Re: usr/man vs usr/share/man?)
Hi,
This is seriously flawed. As I have mentioned several times
here, there are two issues involved: the programs that read /usr/doc,
and the humans who are used to having docs in one place and suddenly
having to look at two places during the transition.
The ballot is seriously flawed too, since Joey's proposal
about fixed programs should be implemented in conjuction with the
symlink propoosal to address both isses.
Since The point obviously did not get across, here's another
try:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are two issues involved:
a) The principle of least surprise, which is the frustration involved
in reading the docs in two different locations. The symlink
solution addresses this
b) incremental upgrades to unstable packages from unstable, which
makes documentation not be accessable with tools such as dwww,
man, ect. Joey's stable upgrades solution addresses that.
The stable-upgrades solution has no impact on the former
problem, and the symlinks solution only addresses the latter in a non
optimal fashion. The symlink solution does have the side effect of
making (b) above less critical, though.
I never made (b) a part of my proposal either before the
policy list of before cebian-ctte, since I felt that a) was important
enough to require a solution, and it made (b) less time critical, and
we could deal with it by ensuring that all the packages in potato
dealt with /usr/share/doc.
The symlink solution would ensure that partial upgrades to
potato would work with man/info/whatever packages that had not been
upgraded, and since potato should have fixed packages, partial
upgrades from potato to woody would work as well.
Partial upgrades from slink to woody would have problems, but
adding stuff to slink-updates (Joey's proposal) would fix that.
With the symlink proposal adopted, Joey's proposal would only
be required for partial slink-->> woody upgrades.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All that you say below only affects the problem (b)
above. That is not good enough.
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:
Raul> Potato includes release-notes which
Raul> (1) warn users about the directory change and the requirement that they
Raul> fix any local procedures or programs which only work under fsstnd,
Raul> (2) asks that users who wish to do a partial update from slink to
Raul> potato first install an "fhs" package which conflicts with versions
Raul> of programs like man-db, dhelp, etc. which don't support the double
Raul> directory standard,
Raul> (3) if there are any packages (such as boa) which can't be modified
Raul> for the double directory standard we go into potato with "known bugs"
Raul> filed against them,
Raul> (4) we ask that the policy committee relax the policy manual
Raul> slightly to tolerate this transition period (perhaps saying that
Raul> http://localhost/doc/<package>/<filename> is optional as long as web
Raul> servers which do not support this mention the issue in their package
Raul> description).
Raul> Personally, I consider such release-notes a sign that we did something
Raul> wrong, but (in my opinion) we already know that we did something wrong,
Raul> and the problem is to fix it...
Raul> * * * * *
manoj
--
We prefer to speak evil of ourselves rather than not speak of
ourselves at all.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Reply to: