Re: /usr/share/doc (was Re: weekly policy summary)
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 04:54:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Then for woody+1 we let people drop the scripts whenever they feel
> like. Crufty symlinks get removed when everyone updates to a new
> base-files that rm's symlinks from within /usr/doc in its postinst on
> upgrade, or something similar.
So all new packages will have to depend on this particular version of
base-files or newer, or there is still no guarantee that the link gets
removed.
> Anyway, I'm quoting Marcus Brinkmann from
> <[🔎] 19990720024126.F1288@ulysses.ulysses.de>:
>
> > But the real expense is elsewhere. I wonder why this hasn't come up before,
> > but here it is:
> > [...]
> > 2. The prerm/postrm script must never go again, because we handle smooth
> > upgrades even if you jump a version number. Otherwise, you will end up with
> > a crufty symlink.
> > [...]
> > ~2000 new prerm/postrm scripts that must never go, even after the
> > transition period.
>
> So this is definitely incorrect, yes?
No it is not. Either the prerm/postrm script, or the dependency on a special
version of base-files.
It seems that the supporters of Manojs proposal do care enough about
backwards-compatibility to make several hundreds of developers do this
additional amount of work, but not enough to make the solution fail-proof.
This is at least half-baken, and the benefit is doubtful to me. As I said, I
think we should spend this collected amount of time and energy on really
important compatibility issues.
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
Reply to: