Re: Can /usr/share/doc/<pkg> be deleted on upgrade ?
On Sun, Nov 29 2009, Jesús M. Navarro wrote:
> Hi, Manoj:
> On Sunday 29 November 2009 04:53:05 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 28 2009, Jesús M. Navarro wrote:
>> > Strongly questionable: notes about package emacs, installed via package
>> > manager might go under /usr/share/doc/emacs, why not.
>> Why not? Because it is not safe, that's why. There is no
>> guarantee made by Debian that your files shall not be stomped on, or
>> that user data will be preserved.
> My general stanza is not that would be the best/more sensible place to
> put files on (I already said I never did it) nor that there isn't a
> note on some (quite hidden) place saying that's against procedure.
Feel free to add a note someplace, then.
> It's a bit on a higher level: there's some obvious common behaviour
> deleting whole (non-empty) directories is not the usual way so unless
> there are strong reasons (it makes a bit easier going that way because
> so does the upstream maintainer I don't think qualifies) I'd favour
> *not* to do that. Do you really find intuitive going to
> /usr/local/share/doc/emacs to look for extra docs about the
> package-managed installed emacs
Well, yes. The vendor documentation is in /usr/share/doc/emacs,
I would not expect site specific docs there. I would indeed look into
> -specially when this package already
> has all its documentation under /usr/share/doc/emacs? Well, I don't.
Well, then don't put the notes there. Select whatever place is
logical to you and your fellow users.
>> But Debian also does not tell you that your file will be there
>> with the next upload. If you name your file foo.txt, there is nothing
>> that guarantees that the next version will not have an empty file
>> called foo.txt in that dir in /usr. Nothing checks to see i there is a
>> user file there. And, by the same token, when the next+1 version
>> removes foo.txt, dpkg will happily remove it.
> True. But again by comparation to other similar behaviours I'd find
> quite odd that the system would remove/replace
> /usr/share/<pkg>/local-notes.txt or even
> /usr/share/doc/<pkg>/mycompany-notes.txt (I think I remember the
> prefix "local-" to be safe at least under /etc). I know that only
> files under /etc (well, files marked as "config") are safe to be
> tweaked by the local administrator on Debian but even that shows more
> of a limitation/compromise from the used tools than a real
> common-sense/best world policy (it'd be better to track *all* files,
> i.e. by means of md5sums, were it not too expensive/burdensome).
Why is it odd if such a file were added upstream?
>> So, the user is well advised not to trust any user data under
>> /usr/share, should be using /usr/local anyway. Given that, while a
>> trifle odd, I see nothing wrong in removing and recreating
>> /usr/share/doc/<pkg> with every install.
> Then why /etc/<pkg>, /var/lib/<pkg> or /var/log/<pkg> won't get the
> same fate? What's *so* different about /usr/share/<pkg> as to expect
> it to be managed so differently? (again, I am not saying that there
> isn't a reason nor that it is even written down somewhere but I'm
> questioning the overall sensibleness of such a policy; after all the
> main reason d'etre for a distribution effort is giving a focused
> common behaviour and integration of an otherwise disparaged bunch of
> packages; the less details/exemptions for the policy, the better).
What makes you think that the other directories (apart from
/etc/*) are any safer? You are only guaranteed /usr/local belongs to
you, and that your changes in files in /etc shall be preserved.
That's all you got.
O'Brian's Law: Everything is always done for the wrong reasons.
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C