Bug#2828: PATCH] check dev/inode before removing old files on upgrade

[ron@microtronics.com.au (Ron)]

> This fixes one of the major bugs in dpkg, IMO. Referenced in #2828 and
> others over time. Basically this is the symlink problem in dpkg which
> forced the kludge we are now using on the /usr/doc upgrade.

I'm feeling very wary about even bringing this up given the history of
this debate..  but does this really mean that we could now more optimally
symlink /usr/doc to /usr/share/doc and abandon the present proposal to
add maintainer scripts to every package?

If so, I for one would like to see that happen.  I have at least one
machine that I suspect will run into drive space problems as a result
of the current proposal.  (yes, its an old machine - no I don't really
want to add new drives to it, it has 4 ide drives in it now.  Yes, I
deliberately packed it very full - no I don't really want to have to
delete some of the packages installed on it just so I can keep the rest
up to date.. ;-)

best,
Ron.

what would be the worst case of changing our /usr/doc policy to use
this single symlink?  A versioned dependency on dpkg with your patch
for packages that could be subject to the doc location transition??