Re: Vanishing /usr/doc symlink
Joey Hess wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Well, what if debootstrap or whatever set up a /usr/doc link then? Or
> base-files could just as easily do this on a new install.
I would be happy with this solution, but apparently Manoj insist that
we follow the "original plan" to the letter, even if the letter of it
is clearly outdated in some aspects (for example, the inability of
dpkg to do some things three years ago).
> I don't entirely like this idea, since it means exercising a novel and
> fairly untested code-path in every postinst of every package, and I'll
> bet some will break.
The code you refer was carefully designed to work with or without /usr/doc.
> And it means that when we work on removing /usr/doc
> entirely in the next release, we will have to worry about getting rid of
> this symlink too. Inconsistency^WDifference breeds bugs.
>
> OTOH maybe it's some sort of a compromise.
It's very easy to check whether /usr/doc is a symlink or not, and when
it is a symlink, it's very easy to remove it. So the overall
complexity of removing /usr/doc is almost the same as before.
Reply to: