Re: /usr/share/doc vs. /usr/doc transition, debate reopened

[Michael Stone <mstone@itri.loyola.edu>]

On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 06:07:55PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 09:22:27AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> > Sure it's legal, but was it a good idea?
> 
> You could ask the same question from a different perspective: was it a
> good idea to change policy to use /usr/share/doc before the transition
> was hashed out?  And is it a good idea to leave it that way?
> 
> Perhaps the change should be reverted until we have a solution.

That's my #1 goal. 

> > Do you want to argue that the
> > current state of the distibution is a Good Thing?
> 
> Well, I don't see any grave problems in having docs in two different
> places.  No essential part of the system breaks by that, it just causes
> some minor inconvenience.

Well, there are the *weeks* we've spent arguing over this with no end in
sight. And since the the distribution is in an inconsistent state (not
all /usr/doc or /usr/share/doc, but a mixture of both) the problem is
more difficult because there are more cases to deal with. If people
would have some patience to wait for a consensus, we could do this with
less argument, IMHO.

Mike Stone