On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 11:31:44AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Hmmm. This also seems like it might require pre-dependencies from every > package against the new version of dpkg that handles following symlinks > correctly. Yeah. I'm not really happy about that, but I don't really see a way around it, either. This isn't the first time that a situation like this has come up, and it probably won't be the last. We need a more general way of dealing with it. > > 1. use both /usr/doc and /usr/share/doc; this upsets the partial > > upgrade people, and worries the UI people. > > "upsets" and "worries" aren't really very precise. Sheesh. Try to do a tounge-in-cheek summary around here...I think everyone needs to relax a bit. I figured that most people had already heard the arguments enough times that they didn't need a detailed summary. > > Don't explicitly use /usr/share/doc yet, and we can rig up a symlink > > to effectively use /usr/share/doc until we come up with a better > > solution; this upsets the policy-says-I-can-therefor-I-must people > > and dismays the people who have already converted their packages > > Requires changes to dpkg, which don't have a particular history of being > made. Possibly requires lots of pre-dependencies that will last for ever. But I think we're moving toward a need for a specific policy pre-dependency. The doc dirs are only one issue. We also have (for example) the mail dirs... Mike Stone
Attachment:
pgpwa09GisFEy.pgp
Description: PGP signature