Bug#40706: AMENDMENT 17/7/99] /usr/share/doc vs. /usr/doc transition

[Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>]

On 19 Jul 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

> >>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> writes:
> 
>  Santiago> So, the *only* remaining reason for the symlinks is the
>  Santiago> users who have gotten used to look under /usr/doc. Well,
>  Santiago> they will have to get used to look under /usr/share/doc
>  Santiago> sooner or later, so this will not help very much. This
>  Santiago> proposal would just postpone the time when people will have
>  Santiago> to look at /usr/share/doc.
> 
>         You are missing the point. It would be acceptable when one can
>  look at any *one* directory. Whtehter it is /usr/doc or
>  /usr/share/doc does not really matter. The problem is the )long)
>  period of transition, where one has to look at two different places.

But your proposed solution creates an inmense lot of work for everybody,
just to keep compliance with a standard (FSSTND) which is not the one that
we should follow. Every postinst has to be modified. Every postrm has to
be modified. Multi-binary packages will have to be modified a lot, and in
many cases maintainer scripts that never existed before will have to be
created as new and installed by debian/rules.

This is a high price to pay, very high.

We have a standard documentation format, which is HTML. People is free of
course to cd to /usr/doc by hand, but considering that many packages
already use doc-base to register HTML docs, I firmly believe that our time
would be *much* better spent if we concentrate, for example, on making
doc-base the standard procedure for registering docs, instead of making
the FHS transition a hell to everybody.

Thanks.

-- 
 "32215260b6abab7fffaf1f70ccf7cb1e" (a truly random sig)