Re: Vanishing /usr/doc symlink
Joey Hess wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
> > 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_.
The plan says we would file important bugs (now serious) against
any package that has not been moved over. This will obviously result
in no package containing the /usr/doc directory.
When the plan was written nobody realized that, at the same time an
upgrade to woody would have an /usr/doc directory completely populated
by symlinks, it was also perfectly possible to have a fresh woody install
not to have /usr/doc at all.
> Do you have a better candidate package to include it?
Having /usr/doc in a woody package is a bug.
Even lintian complains about it.
Reply to: