Re: Bug#42477: PROPOSED} delay the /usr/doc transition till after potato
Mike Goldman <whig@by.net> writes:
> Furthermore, it is clear that the proposal was not at all serious,
> but a measure intended only to buy time.
Excuse me? It was most definitely *both*! And moreover, to give us a
clean release of Potato, and to give us an entire release cycle to get
Woody into shape. I don't hold much hope in the "deus ex machina"
magic solutions -- while it's true that the proposal *does* allow us
more time to consider such solutions, that was most *assuredly* not
the purpose of the proposal.
> A serious proposal should provide the implementation and timing for
> the transition to take place, and not defer such decisions to some
> future time.
The timing was exact: Potato uses /usr/doc, everything subsequent
uses /usr/share/doc. I don't know how much more exact you want,
especially since when I made the proposal, we didn't have a target
freeze date for Potato yet.
The implementation was precise and simple: again, Potato uses
/usr/doc, everything subsequent uses /usr/share/doc. What's missing
from that implementation?
The really interesting thing is that the day before I made the
proposal, you said explicitly that you would support such a proposal.
You are one of the people I had on my list of obvious seconds. And
yet, when I actually made the formal proposal, you suddenly decide
that it's evil and horrid. And pose some very strange, and, frankly,
obscure objections. Forgive me for being confused, but I am.
--
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: