Re: Vanishing /usr/doc symlink
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 07:54:22PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> 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).
I suppose the concern is whether prerms actually get it right, since
that's less well-tested than postinsts. I know one of my packages has
had a broken prerm that didn't remove the /usr/doc link at one point.
As far as I can tell, the proposed script in base-files has two
benefits: coping with broken prerms so that /usr/doc can go away, and
coping with partial upgrades. We should also consider third-party (e.g.
aliened) software that people may have built to install in /usr/doc.
Colin Watson [email@example.com]