Re: Vanishing /usr/doc symlink
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> A quick recap:
> potato: partial transition. /usr/doc is the place we point people
> to. /usr/doc has some symlinks
> woody: /usr/doc should have only symlinks. We point people to
> woody +1 : policy changes just after woody release. symlinks are
> supposed to go away now (only a recommends -- can't make
> 8000+ packages insta-buggy)
> woody+n: when sufficient packages no longer have symlinks, policy
> changed again to must not, and any packages with symlinks
> in /usr/doc have release critical bugs. At this point
> /usr/doc can go away.
> Whether N==1 depends on how quickly people remove the symlinks.
Ok, it's quite clear. While we are at it, perhaps you might want to
shed some light on this paragraph from the "original plan":
3. At a later date, another policy (say, 4.X) shall ask for
packages to no longer provide the link (and possibly remove
links from /usr/doc). We can also provide a script (possibly
in base-files postinst) that rm's symlinks from within
/usr/doc. woody+1 may ship with such a script. (there was a
proposal as well that potato+2 (woody+1) ships with just the
prerms, and not the base file script, and potato+3 ships
with the base-file script, but I am not sure this long a
reversion period is required).
How should this "We can" be interpreted, exactly? Does it mean it's an
"optional" item, i.e. not an essential part of the transition plan?
I have always considered this idea unnecessary and potentially dangerous,
since the prerms by itself will already remove the symlinks, sooner or later.
(Joey and I have discussed several times about this).
What if the day after woody release a bug against base-files is filed
saying "base-files.postinst should remove symlinks as stated in the
transition plan"? Is this a "must", a "should", or a "we'll see"?