Re: /usr/share/doc vs. /usr/doc transition, debate reopened

[Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>]

FWIW, I agree with Michael Stone.

Michael Stone writes ("Re: /usr/share/doc vs. /usr/doc transition, debate reopened"):
> On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 12:05:39PM +0200, Kristoffer.Rose@ens-lyon.fr wrote:
> > What other problems could there be with my proposal.
> 
> Well, the real reason is that you're trying to rearrange 110M that might
> be located on a filesystem other than the destination filesystem. If
> someone's doing careful space management, that could cause problems;
> also, that move wouldn't be atomic and you'd have to worry about failure
> detection and clean-up. I see two valid approaches: first, we could do
> the move only if the source and destination are on the same fs, in which
> case the move is atomic and there are no potential difficulties. If
> they're on different fs's, we leave /usr/doc alone and put in the
> opposite symlink (/usr/share/doc->/usr/doc). second, we could come up
> with some kind of complicated copy-and-check-the-result script that will
> catch all of the possible error conditions (out of disk space,
> interrupted operation, etc.) I'm inclined to go with the first approach.
> I propose rules like this: if there is a /usr/doc directory and there is not a
> /usr/share/doc, and /usr/share is on the same partition as /usr/doc,
> move /usr/doc to /usr/share/doc. If there is /usr/doc, create a
> /usr/share/doc symlink pointing to it. And, for the next few releases,
> if there is a /usr/share/doc, create a /usr/doc symlink pointing to it.