Re: I'd like to coordinate a major update of stable
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Rather than berate each other about our obtuseness on this
> issue in particular, or a lack of acuity in general, I posit that
> there are two issues involved:
> a) frustration involved in readin 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. Your 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.
> I agree that the symlinks solution does not handle 2; and your
> stable upgrades solution would be required.
Er, what are you saying. Does the symlink solution fix b) in a non-optimal
way, or not at all (and what is "2")?
> The proposal that I put forth before the -policy
> group, and before the tech ctte, has to do with the first problem.
Why did you ignore the second problem? It's clear you knew about it on July
17th, when you posted a proposal to fix it that included:
| * We should not break backwards compatibility during the transition
| period. This is a quality of implementation issue
| 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
I cannot belive you claim you are not aware of this issue, or that this is
not at least half of the issue the techical committe was called upon to fix.
I can find numerous mentions of problem b) throughout the policy list
archives for last month. It's not as if this were a concern I just brought up.
see shy jo