Re: Moving to the FHS: not right now!
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> > As long as all the docs are in the
> > same place in a stable release, who *cares* what kind of ugliness was
> > involved in moving them? Unstable is *supposed* to be, er, unstable.
> Most of us have a certain selfish interest it keeping unstable as pleasant
> as possible, I suspect. So that's who cares.
Yes, I realize that, which is why I'm trying to remind people that
stable *should* be our first priority. At least IMO.
> > *None* of the proposals (I think we're up to four now) seem to have
> > *major* problems. However, the symlinks seem unnecessary to me,
> > *unless* we want to make unstable more consistent,
> ...or if we don't want to have to change every package before releasing
> potato. That's what, an average of 6 packages per maintainer or something
> now?
Excuse me? Did you even read my proposal? The one that suggests that
we stick with /usr/doc until after Potato? :-)
> Then if this ACTUALLY TECHNICAL objection is so completely irrelevant as
> to not even warrant discussion, why bring it up?
> Seriously, why?
It was meant as an aside: "I don't believe this is primarily a
technical issue, but as long as we're discussing technical issues,
here's the only technical issue I see." It's not an important issue,
no; it's barely worth mentioning, yes. However, it's the only
actually technical issue around.
> "Hmmm. Changing all packages is going to a fair bit of time -- it has in
> the past, for libc6 and stuff.
Yes, that's why I suggest that we wait till after Potato, and start
the changeover at the *beginning* of a release cycle. That way we
have as much time as possible.
cheers
--
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: