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

Re: Vanishing /usr/doc symlink

Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>  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;

Obviously not.

> it worried about smooth partial upgrades,

A fresh woody install with a /usr/doc pointing to /usr/share/doc would
have been compatible with smooth partial upgrades from slink to potato
and from potato to woody which end up with a /usr/doc full of

We would have just needed a policy saying postinsts and prerms should
cope with a non existing /usr/doc or it being a symlink to /usr/share/doc.

We could even had kept the same example prerm and postinst we
currently have in policy.

> 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'',

I do not propose to "assume" anything, we could have made policy how
exactly those postinsts should behave if /usr/doc is missing and we
would have nothing to assume.

> 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''.

A /usr/doc -> /usr/share/doc symlink would solve this on a fresh woody install.

>  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.

Yes, I think I'll consider it.

Reply to: