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
symlinks.
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: