Re: Vanishing /usr/doc symlink
Santiago Vila wrote:
> > The original plan said that base-files would still contain it. Otherwise
> > we're in the situation where upgrades from potato will have /usr/doc but
> > new installs of woody won't, which in turn means that the script that
> > will remove symlinks from inside /usr/doc and migrate to a single
> > /usr/doc -> /usr/share/doc symlink won't be as well tested as it should
> > be.
>
> What you call the original plan was only a "possibility" and it's not
> part of policy (which, btw, is frozen).
That is a striking peice of revisionist history. What you call only a
"possiblity" was arrived at after long and tortuous discussion here and
by the technical committee. The transition plan was not put in policy
because we don't put transition plans or other things that involve
specific debian releases or dates into policy; policy always reflects
the current requrements, not future ones.
Policy currently requires that a package maintain a symlink in /usr/doc,
and if a new install of woody does not get those symlinks, it is
certianly violating policy, and it is not complying with the transition
plan's requirement that "potato+1 (woody) ships with a full
/usr/share/doc, and a /usr/doc full of symlinks."
> We don't need /usr/doc to belong to any package in woody, not even as
> a symlink, because we have agreed that all packages in woody should
> use /usr/share/doc.
When did we agree to that? In the same original plan which you dismiss
as 'only a "possibility"'? The same plan that mandated that there be a
release of debian in which /usr/doc exists and is entirely populated by
symlinks.
> Automatically removing symlinks in /usr/doc during the upgrade from
> potato to woody would be tricky.
Whereas the transition plan includes plans to remove them during the
upgrade from woody to woody+1.
--
see shy jo
Reply to: