On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 11:07:01AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 06:27:40PM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > Sure, but lacking /usr/share/doc is, aiui, a non-RC issue as it stands
> > (since there seems to be some sort of deadlock in working out what to do
> > about it)...
> In a message sent in this thread only a good hour before this mail you
> said you want that RC are filed for packages lacking /usr/share/doc [...]
Obviously, I misunderstand it then.
So, what, exactly are we doing about /usr/doc and /usr/share/doc for
woody?
I propose we make the /usr/doc/foo -> /usr/share/doc/foo kludge mandatory
for all packages in woody, and file RC bugs on them ASAP. It's functional,
it's already in policy, we know how to do it, and we can get rid of in
the future without major hassle.
If someone has some specific alternative they'd rather, that's at least
as effective, please explain it now (ie, within the next few days),
or wait 'til after woody.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
-- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
Attachment:
pgpxNOwxUiLly.pgp
Description: PGP signature