Re: many packages still using /usr/doc
On Sat, 8 Jan 2000, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2000, Anand Kumria wrote:
>
> > ... is anyone else seeing a large number of packages reported by:
> > $ ls -l /usr/doc | grep ^d | wc -l
> > 162
> > instead of the expected 0?
>
> Who is expecting 0 here? We expect this for Debian 2.3, but not for
> potato. In potato we expect, that every documentation is available as
> /usr/doc/<package> (documentation either placed there or accessible
> via a symlink to /usr/share/doc/<package>).
No, we expect 0 here. I am checking for directories (ls -l /usr/doc |
grep ^d) when according to the packaging manual (or is it
policy?) there should only be symlinks.
> > Should a mass bug report be filed against
> > these (ls -l /usr/doc/ | grep ^d | awk ' { printf "%s ", $9 }
> > ') packages?
>
> Not before the release of potato!
> You should only file bug reports against packages, which place their
> documentation in /usr/share/doc/<package> _without_ a symlink to
> /usr/doc/<package> (I didn't check which packages still have this
> bug).
Well it wouldn't have taken you much time[1], I did check and 13 out
of 159 packages have symlinks in /usr/share/doc/package pointing to
/usr/doc. From what I remember that was the inital way to doing
things, it is quite likely that those packages are buggy anyway.
Anand
[1] $ for i in `ls -l /usr/doc | grep ^d | awk ' { printf "%s ", $9 }
'`; do if [ -d /usr/share/doc/`basename $i` ]; then echo $i; fi; done
| wc -l
Reply to: