On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 03:53:47PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> 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.
Erm, no, they don't need to declare any such dependency -- the package
works with or without such a symlink.
Furthermore, the symlink will get removed as soon as (a) the user upgrades
to a version of Debian that isn't meant to have the symlinks, or (b) the
user gets annoyed and gets rid of it him or herself.
I fail to see what the big problem with fairly obvious symlinks existing
on a system that's halfway between two significantly different file system
standards. I also can't see admins being particularly bothered by the
existance of such symlinks on such systems.
OTOH, it *is* inconvenient to have documentation scattered inconsistently
between /usr/doc and /usr/share/doc. We've even had user complaints on
this list about it.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.
``There's nothing worse than people with a clue.
They're always disagreeing with you.''
-- Andrew Over
Attachment:
pgpVDjrDX5dmz.pgp
Description: PGP signature