Re: FWD: /usr/doc vs. /usr/share/doc - the decision
Joel Klecker wrote:
> At 23:11 -0700 1999-08-03, Joey Hess wrote:
> >Hello. Some may consider this email an abuse of this mailing list. To those,
> >I apologize in advance.
>
> I consider it an extreme abuse of -devel-announce.
That's nice, I suggest you review past traffic of that list. I did and it
put my mind at rest.
[xemacs] Progress Report on XEmacs 21.1.4 Karl M. Hegbloom
Build-time dependencies - please review the proposal Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho
debmake and FHS Santiago Vila
fakeroot is completely broken Gergely Madarasz
Quake list created Joseph Carter
QuickPPP 1.0 to be available. Andrew G . Feinberg
Taking over more packages Jon Marler
If all these are valid, my post certianly was.
> >to handle the transition to /usr/share/doc. If this discussion comes to
> >anything, those package that have already been modified to use
> >/usr/share/doc may well need to be changed. Even worse, they may stand in
> >the way of proposed solutions to the problem.
>
> I am again upset that I am being "punished" for following policy.
Er, did I propose to do you harm in any way? I didn't say we would
steam-roller over you and break every bone in your body, I merely said you
had placed something in our way and may be causing *us* problems. How do you
twist that into *us* punishing *you*?
> Since you insist on complaining about me following policy, I have
> decided that I will not follow *any* policy about a "/usr/doc ->
> /usr/share/doc transition plan", should one be decided on.
I'm not going to reply to this, becuase I can't do so without stooping to an
extreme level of childishness to match yours.
> >Thus, I would like to encourage everyone to wait until this issue is
> >resolved or until we agree there is no good resolution, before implementing
> >the current policy of making packages use /usr/share/doc.
>
> If this is such an issue, why is it that you objectors to /usr/doc ->
> /usr/share/doc with no transition did not object to the FHS amendment
> to policy as it was?
Because we'd sat on that issue for over 6 months, and I wanted to see
something get done! And because neither I nor anyone else apparently thought
it through. And because we're still breaking in a new way of formulating
policy here and we arn't accustomed to it nor do we have all the bugs worked
out of it.
Was your flame really necessary? Was it constructive?
--
see shy jo
Reply to: