Re: Vanishing /usr/doc symlink

[Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>]

Colin Watson wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
> > 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.

Well, several things:

*) The purpose of base-files is not to fix bugs in other packages.

*) At least in woody+1, it would be silly to remove symlinks at the same
time we still allow them to be created. I hope people is aware of this.
(Just because the plan says "we can" does not mean it is a good idea).

*) What if (after upgrading to a version of a package which does not create
the symlink anymore) a user creates a symlink in /usr/doc because he/she wants?
Should this symlink be removed also? I doubt those symlinks have to be
removed outside the prerm's.

Thanks.