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.
>
> I was referring to the particular item suggesting base-files should do
> such and such, not to the plan as a whole.
Well, I don't think the original plan did say base-files had to include
the directory, but it certianly required that the directory still
_be_there_. Do you have a better candidate package to include it?
--
see shy jo
Reply to: