Bug#40706: usr/share/doc vs. /usr/doc
On 05-Jul-99, 07:49 (CDT), Roland Rosenfeld <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jul 1999, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > Agreed, users should not be forced to upgrade unnecessarily, nor
> > accross-the-board, and we should make that as painlesl *as
> > reasonably feasible*.
> That's what I mean.
But that's different than "without *any* drawbacks".
> But for the /usr/doc vs. /usr/share/doc topic this means, that the
> user has to upgrade _all_ packages (Presumed that _all_ developers
> rebuild _all_ packages according to FHS soon, which isn't very
No, they don't have to upgrade. They can choose between upgrading
a package, or accepting that for the packages they choose not
to upgrade, they'll have to continue to use /usr/doc/.
Actually, I'm not against the symlinks; I think they're a reasonable
idea. It's just that when people start tossing out statements that
sound like "Debian is committed to letting you continue to use the
four-year-old version of package x without *any* drawbacks", my alarms
go off. There *are* going to be drawbacks if a user chooses not to
upgrade some packages.