Re: /usr/share/doc (was Re: weekly policy summary)
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:
> Please hold off that for a week or so. There are
> constitutional methods for getting contentious stuff into the plicy
> document, and this seems like an ideal scenario for one of them.
It may be too late. We *NEED* consensus on this sort of thing:
- - - -
To: Alan S. Shole <asshole@debian.org>
Subject: Bug#66666: wonko uses /usr/share/doc only
Reply-to: 66666@bugs.debian.org, Joe User <joe@user.com>
Package: wonko
Version: 4.04-3
Wonko uses /usr/share/doc and doesn't have a symlink in /usr/doc,
which is a violation of policy.
- - - -
To: 66666-done@bugs.debian.org, Joe User <joe@user.com>
Subject: Re: Bug#66666: wonko uses /usr/share/doc only
Wonko is compliant with policy version 3.0.0.0; the requirement for
a symlink did not appear until 3.0.0.1. This is not a bug. The
requirement for a symlink is guaranteed (by policy) to be revoked in
a future version of policy, and Wonko will stick with 3.0.0.0 until then.
I see no reason to waste my time creating this symlink only to
remove it again later. When policy 4.x comes out, I may be able to
change the standards version without changing anything else.
- - - -
Now that the cat's out of the bag, the *only* sane approach is to find
a compromise that people are *willing* to accept. Since many packages
will be sticking with earlier standards versions (which require
/usr/doc), I say that we should stick with /usr/doc (and pooh on the
FHS -- which the symlinks arguably violate in any case!) until potato
is released.
The underlying problem we have here is that policy versions are not
well coupled with releases. Thus, we have a drastic policy change
just before a release, causing extra panic and mayhem. But that's a
whole 'nuther topic that deserves its own lengthy discussion.....
cheers
--
Chris Waters xtifr@dsp.net | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or xtifr@debian.org | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
Reply to: