Re: "goals" for slink: FHS
Lars Wirzenius <liw@iki.fi> wrote:
> Manual pages and info files can already in several locations (/usr and
> /usr/local), and all relevant programs must therefore already support
> multiple locations. Adding /usr/share/man and /usr/share/info should
> therefore not be a problem.
There's a difference between supporting multiple (existing) locations and
multiple locations plus new locations. And yes, all our programs can
deal with multiple locations, but do we really want to have man pages
which are invisible to some programs during the transition?
> Thus, I think we'd be better off without the symlinks.
The advantage of using symlinks for the transition is that our system
never has to stop working -- there is only a single dependency to
worry about.
Getting dependencies to work with a "we just fix all the problems in all
the relevant packages because it's not an issue" approach is seems sloppy
to me, as it will break for some people [or require very extensive work
on dependencies].
You're implying a many-to-many relationship involving versions. And since
dpkg doesn't support virtual packages with versions this implies we're
going to have a variety of problems with virtual packages, and probably
some rather arcane interdependency work to eventually sweep the problem
under a rug.
I'd love to be proven wrong, of course.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: