Re: I'd like to coordinate a major update of stable
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Firstly, it does not address the problem.
> I realize that people are having trouble unstanding exactly
> what the problem is that was presented (to which the symlink proposal
> was a solution). Since it appears that I have been less than limpid,
> I shall try and expand on the problem as I see it.
Manoj, AFIAK I was the one who originally brought up the problem. I have
vigorously tried to eplain it to people. Be assure that I *do* get it. And I
realize what I proposed doesn't address it, and said exactly that in the
proposal. As I said, it is a non-techiical *compromise*.
> The problem is not a major one. It has to do with the degree
> of frustration involved in readin the docs (merely changing the
> location of the docs is not really a problem -- one learns the new
> location quickly enough)
> I find that whenevver there are two locations to get
> documentation from (user visible locations, that is -- I don't really
> care where man gets my man pages from), then murphy's law states that
> the docs will be in the last place I try.
You are the one who doesn't understant the problem. The problem is one of
incremental upgrades to unstable packages from unstable, which makes
documentation not be accessable with tools such as dwww, man, ect. It has
nothing to do with command-line frustration and learning to use a new
I am hugely tired of trying to explin this to people, when absolutly no one
seems to get it. This is a large part of why I proposed this in the first
place. Since no one understand the problem anyway, I doubt we will ever get
a correct solution. :-(
see shy jo, very frustrated