Re: Vanishing /usr/doc symlink

[Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>]

Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> writes:
>
>  Santiago> The plan says we would file important bugs (now serious) against
>  Santiago> any package that has not been moved over. This will obviously result
>  Santiago> in no package containing the /usr/doc directory.
>
> 	Wrong.  When you figure out why you are wrong, come back and
>  try and sell us a real solution.

The original plan said:

     2.  Post potato, we continue the transition, with the symlinks in
         place. Before freeze, we file important bugs against any
         package that has not been moved over (in one and a half
         release periods, we may be actually able to accomplish this),
         with NMU-fests to bring over the others.

So at least the first thing I said does not seem wrong to me.

Regarding the second, I suppose you refer to the `must' in "each package
must maintain a symlink `/usr/doc/<package>'" as stated in one of your
previous messages.

Does this really mean /usr/doc has to belong (in the "dpkg -S" sense)
to some package? Would not be enough that /usr/doc is in the system
(for example, created by debootstrap) to comply with policy?


[ I see we are very constrained by current policy. Perhaps we should
have made policy for woody (and included in the transition plan) that
no package in woody should rely on the existence or status (symlink or
directory) of /usr/doc, like the example scripts do. In this case I
suppose the proposed symlink /usr/doc -> /usr/share/doc would be
something more than "fine and dandy" but a real possibility to consider ].