Re: Bug#69311: [PROPOSAL] Finishing the /usr/doc -> /usr/share/doc transition.
Santiago Vila wrote:
> Now that potato has been released, I propose that we start deprecating
> the /usr/doc compatibility symlinks, at the same time we make
> using /usr/share/doc a nearly-release-goal for woody.
Have you read http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte-9909/msg00023.html and
http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-ctte-9908/msg00038.html
lately? Quoting the Tech Committee's decision:
| 1. Policy 3.X mandates that packages that move the docs to
| /usr/share/doc must provide a compatibility symlink in /usr/doc.
| This shall allow packages to incrementally move to policy 3.X,
| while providing compatibility with older systems.
| (/usr/doc/package symlink is handled by package)
|
| Thus, potato ships with a full /usr/doc/ (some of which is symlinks),
| and a partial /usr/share/doc.
This is where we are now. And I stress that the transition is currently
*incomplete*:
joey@kite:/usr/doc>cat /etc/debian_version
woody
joey@kite:/usr/doc>find . -maxdepth 1 -type d |wc -l
187
joey@kite:/usr/doc>find /usr/share/doc -maxdepth 1 -type d |wc -l
961
| 2. Post potato, we continue the transition, with the symlinks in
| place. Before freeze, we file important bugs against any
| package that has not been moved over (in one and a half
| release periods, we may be actually able to accomplish this),
| with NMU-fests to bring over the others.
We seem to be well on our way to accomplishing this for woody, with about 83%
of packages converted.
| Thus, potato+1 (woody) ships with a full /usr/share/doc, and a
| /usr/doc full of symlinks.
|
| 3. At a later date, another policy (say, 4.X) shall ask for
| packages to no longer provide the link (and possibly remove
| links from /usr/doc). We can also provide a script (possibly
| in base-files postinst) that rm's symlinks from within
| /usr/doc. woody+1 may ship with such a script. (there was a
| proposal as well that potato+2 (woody+1) ships with just the
| prerms, and not the base file script, and potato+3 ships
| with the base-file script, but I am not sure this long a
| reversion period is required).
I have to object to efforts to change and short-circuit the Tech Committee's
decision. I also really hate reopening this whole issue. Can we just not
follow the plan we went through so much trouble to agree on in the first
place?
--
see shy jo
Reply to: