On Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 12:05:17PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On 6 Sep 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Next stage: : /usr/doc is illegal, and we start filing bugs against
> > packages still using /usr/doc. Symlinks are still
> > required.
> This is exactly what I am trying to avoid.
Personally, I'd prefer to avoid this too. I only think it's reasonable
to avoid it if we can change policy at a time when relatively few packages
still use /usr/doc and not /usr/share/doc, though. Anything else, and
we have all the same problems we're trying to avoid now.
> Question: Does this proposal sound "compatible" enough with what the
> technical committee has just decided so that it may be approved by the
> ordinary policy procedures? If so, I will probably make a formal proposal
> and look for seconds.
FWIW, I don't see the point of making a proposal that says `we'll do
such and such at some point'. Let's make the proposal when we're ready
to do it, and not waste our time beforehand. (And that way we don't
have to worry about hypotheticals like "lots of maintainers not using
symlinks" or "only a few packages left to convert" or whatever). I'm all
for adding this into an informal strategy document accompanying policy,
though. It's probably reasonable to mention both possibilities and just
leave it at that.
Cheers,
aj, who'd rather not keep running round and round in circles on this
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.
``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds
Attachment:
pgp2Pf1DRrXPq.pgp
Description: PGP signature