Re: /usr/share/doc: some new proposals

[Chris Waters <xtifr@dsp.net>]

Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:

> On Sun, Aug 01, 1999 at 02:05:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:

> > > DELAYED DO-NOTHING (the Bad One)

> > Honestly, I don't even think this is that bad.
> > 
> > Anyway, I think the more important part of this discussion, or at
> > least the more controversial part, is whether symlinks/cronjobs/hacking
> > dpkg or whatever is even an acceptable measure. Which is why all
> > the formal objections irk me.

> I agree. I would make a proposal that sounds like:

> Move to usr/share/doc in individual packages. Do nothing else. No symlinks,
> no messing with dpkg, no scripts.

I already followed up on this once, but I'd like to make another
point.  If we go with the default now, potato is *going* to be a mess!
If, instead, we hold off on moving /usr/doc/ till *after* potato, then
we have a clean potato, and a whole release cycle to get woody fixed
up, and maybe make it consistent.

There is more involved with FHS than I think many people realize.  We
have a fair amount of work to do just with the stuff that is obvious
*and* non-contentious, like /usr/share/man and /usr/share/info.  I
haven't heard *anyone* discuss the move from /var/lib/games to
/var/games either, which is going to require a bit of work.  Potato is
*not* going to be FHS compliant, so why pretend?  The /usr/doc issue
is big, but it's simple and consistent, and will yield to brute force
measures *somehow*.  Let's make sure we have the more subtle,
inobvious, and tricky bits under control before worrying about it.

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.