[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#42477: PROPOSED} delay the /usr/doc transition till after potato



At 16:02 -0700 1999-08-04, Chris Waters wrote:
Unlike most other FHS-mandated changes, an inconsistency here will be
*highly* visible, and probably very annoying to our users.

Whatever, they can deal.

It's going to be a while before we can claim FHS compliance in any
case.  We have a lot of changes to make.  The /usr/share/doc
transition affects many packages, but it's obvious, and fairly simple
once you get down to it.  Other stuff may not be so simple or obvious.

I moved glibc's man pages and info docs into their FHS locations a long time ago, I have yet to hear of any problems with it. There's not much else except perhaps /var/state -> /var/lib in the few packages that jumped that gun.

Therefore, I propose that Packages intended for for the distributions
code-named "Potato" (and "Slink") continue to use /usr/doc.  This will
ensure that Potato is consistent.

There will always be an inconsistency, in a move of extreme childishness :P, I have decided that I will not move glibc's docs back to /usr/doc even if policy tells me to.

+             <p>For the release code-named "Potato", packages should
+               continue to use /usr/doc instead of the FHS's
+               /usr/share/doc, for consistency.  For uploads to
+               "Potato" (and the earlier "Slink"), please use
+               /usr/doc  whereever this document refers to
+               /usr/share/doc.</p>

I don't know why, but putting clauses in policy conditional on specific release names screams "wrong!" to me.

	    </footnote>
	    ) with the Linux File system Hierarchy Standard
	    (FHS).  The latest version of this document can be found

I formally object to this proposal.
--
Joel Klecker (aka Espy)                    Debian GNU/Linux Developer
<URL:mailto:jk@espy.org>                 <URL:mailto:espy@debian.org>
<URL:http://web.espy.org/>               <URL:http://www.debian.org/>


Reply to: