Re: Vanishing /usr/doc symlink
Colin Watson wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Colin Watson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 11:21:23PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > > 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?
> > >
> > > If all else fails, debootstrap could create it before installing
> > > packages. Obviously it's not as neat as having it in the dpkg database,
> > > but, since it only matters for new installs and since it'll be rmdir'ed
> > > later, it should work well enough.
> >
> > Seems a much better place to me, please add a debconf question so that
> > users are able to say no.
>
> I wasn't aware that debootstrap was able to ask debconf questions,
> seeing as it installs debconf. boot-floppies could ask a question, but
> they already ask quite a lot ...
Oops, yes, I meant boot-floppies...
I bet that most users will *not* want /usr/doc full of symlinks,
that's why I strongly suggest to make a question.
BTW: For those who are so clueless that didn't realize yet that docs
are now in /usr/share/doc, a /usr/doc -> /usr/share/doc symlink should
be enough, not a /usr/doc fully populated by symlinks, which is a
little bit absurd.
Reply to: