[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Vanishing /usr/doc symlink

>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> writes:

 Santiago> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
 >> manoj
 >> who can't figger why we can't just make a plan and stick to it

 Santiago> Because the plan was not perfect, obviously.

	You haven't quite made that case. The plan obviously took into
 account far more than you are at the moment; it worried about
 smooth partial upgrades, it did not assume blithely that murphy's law
 shall not strike, or that ``we assume that most postsinsts are likely
 to be sane and weel crafted ot use a helper package'', it did not
 have the attitude that a smooth upgrade was only required for
 ``clueless users who couldn't fogire out that the documentation had
 been moved under them''.

	From what I have seen of the half baked proposals recently
 posted to the mailing list, the plan we are following is reasoned,
 works for even the corner cases, not just the most common case, and,
 apart from one developer who seems to be bothered by it, does not
 have many retractors. 

 Santiago> We will not be able to release woody (a fresh install)
 Santiago> without /usr/doc just because policy said it had to exist,
 Santiago> but it would have been technically possible and desirable
 Santiago> to do so.

	I think not. Your ``technically possible'' is based on
 assumptions I think we can't make if we place quality before

 Santiago> I just hope we do not repeat this mistake and change policy
 Santiago> just after woody release, so that packages should not rely
 Santiago> on /usr/doc being present, even if this means we have to
 Santiago> deprecate the tech committee's plan.

	Please go ahead and file a GR to the effect.

 Will the third world war keep "Bosom Buddies" off the air?
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: