Re: Vanishing /usr/doc symlink
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Joey" == Joey Hess <joey@kitenet.net> writes:
>
> Joey> Can you even guarantee that all the postinsts in Debian will deal
> Joey> correctly with a missing /usr/doc? That code path has not had much
> Joey> testing.
>
> I think it is reasonable to expect a package to be able to do
> rm -rf /usr/doc/$package; ln -s ../share/doc/$package /usr/doc/$package
> in current policy.
How can that be reasonable? It assumes that /usr/doc exist, but
current policy does not say anywhere that /usr/doc should exist.
Unless the package includes /usr/doc itself or creates it (in which
case it would be a bug), no, I don't think it's reasonable to assume
that /usr/doc should exist.
> When writing standards documents, and policies, you need to
> not just care for the most common case and ignore the outliers.
The common case are those who use debhelper :-) The outliers are those
who cut and pasted from the policy manual (13.4 Accessing the documentation)
to write their postinst and prerm.
I would be very surprised to see a package assuming /usr/doc to exist
which has not received a bug because of it yet.
Reply to: