On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 04:30:50PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > 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? What is the upgrade path if the directory is created by debootstrap? There does have to be something which gets rid of the directory and replaces it with a symlink, which I seem to recall is the next stage of the migration. debootstrap is never run for upgraded systems, correct? > [ 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 ]. But it's a little late for policy changes now... Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpg4voF0IEtm.pgp
Description: PGP signature