Re: FHS - transition
On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> (See also my post to debian-devel about this. In particular, I'm
> opposed to /var/state and think we should ignore the FHS on this
> point.)
>
> One of the key changes that the FHS has compared to the FSSTND is the
> existence of /usr/share. I think this is perfectly appropriate, but
> it will take some effort. We need to make sure that everything works
> during the transitional period.
>
> The following things should be done in the following order:
>
> 1. base-files should be amended to contain /usr/share/man,
> /usr/share/doc and similar, as symlinks to /usr/man, etc.
> base-files's postinst should check that none of these directories
> exist as actual directories in both places and fail with an error
> message if they do.
> [ snipped ]
I strongly disagree. In fact, I see this as a contradiction to your
earlier post, in which you said: "no `flag day', no moving everything at
once".
We have discussed this before, but it seems that you missed the discussion
at all: If man and info are modified so that they support both old and new
locations, we will not have to symlink anything, and we will not need to
copy a lot of files from a directory to another one. Just upgrade packages
incrementally and the ones being FHS-compliant will have already the files
in /usr/share.
--
"793d082717ed6f2004f4cbe783e80b1d" (a truly random sig)
Reply to: