Re: usr/man vs usr/share/man?
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 04:18:19PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Didn't we come up with a good and reasonable solution to that problem? =p
Well, to deal with one particular aspect of incrementel upgrading there
are some people (very competent developers, overall) who are seriously
proposing that *every*single*package* must be changed and re-released
for potato. That means those that have not yet migrated to FHS as well
as those which have. And that inevitably means that potato's release
will be delayed.
Personally, I don't think that's a very reasonable solution to the
problem, but the alternatives are (1) let some users' systems break
on incremental update (apt-get install <packages>), or (2) revert the
packages which have already migrated to FHS and come up with a different
To be fair, this particular issue is not about /usr/man/. It is, however,
a result of the same sentence in policy that specified the change from
/usr/man/ -> /usr/share/man/.