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

Bug#102199: Next stage in usr/doc -> usr/share/doc transition

Anthony Towns wrote:
> I think the most efficient way of handling usr/doc for woody will be to
> have everything reference /usr/share/doc, and require all packages to
> put their files in /usr/share/doc, and to make symlinks in /usr/doc. The
> latter is mainly for partial upgrades.
> To achieve this, we only need two changes: one, programs that access docs
> need to do so via /usr/share/doc

Do you mean accessing docs programatically (rare) or by reference in man
pages and error messages (sorta common)? If the latter, it seems a bit
late to ask for a thurough audit of all of debian's man pages and error
messages and so on before the freeze[1].

Even the former has its problems with finding all affected packages and
fixing what's sure to be a ton of them in any sane timeframe.

It also has the problem of the web server policy still requiring that
"HTML documents for a package are stored in `/usr/share/doc/<package>'
but should be accessed via symlinks as `/usr/doc/<package>'" (So at the
minimum, your policy patch needs to deal with that, too.)

I thought the idea was to freeze policy soon in preparation for freezing

> and two, we need to upgrade any existing
> bugs about usr/doc to serious (note that current policy already lists this as
> a "must", so this is a change in spirit not letter).
> The bugs this may affect are (greping for usr.doc or usr.share.doc in the
> subject):

That's an awefully broad brush. We have a set of bugs filed on all
packages with files in /usr/doc. They were filed by Adam Heath on a
given day with a single subject, and should be easy to pick out and
promote to serious[2]. There are probably few enough packages that put
files in /usr/doc or bugger up the symlink by now that it's fixable
in a sane timeframe.

Your list looks like it has a high error margin. Just to pick a few:

>  41441 sirc       sirc: should not include /usr/doc/sirc/LICENSE.gz           
>  53520 doc-linux- doc-linux-text: non-english HOWTOs in /usr/share/doc/en-{txt
>  57367 tetex-base /usr/share/doc/texmf/mkhtml needs to be executable          
>  60027 urlview    moreinfo//usr/share/doc/urlview/html/.dhelp fails m5sum     
>  63885 logout-but logout-button: examples should be in /usr/share/doc   
>  63928 dmalloc    /usr/share/doc/dmalloc/html/.dhelp fails debsums            
>  65205 fvwm       fvwm: says /usr/share/doc/fvwm/README.upgrade, not README.De
>  67386 xemacs21   /usr/share/doc/sp/xml.htm wrong?                            
>  68216 swish++    Swish++ aborts while indexing /usr/doc                      
>  69021 apache     apache: srm.conf defaults to /usr/doc, which gives permissio
>  76095 cgilib     /usr/doc/cgilib/examples/cgitest.c does not compile         

While it also seems to miss all of doogie's bugs, which I think had a
title like "bad doc dir symlink", or something very vaguely like that.

see shy jo

[1] On the other hand, I just committed fixes to the few references to
    /usr/doc that I had missed and that it made sense to change, in all
    of my packages. :-)
[2] Probably wouldn't hurt to check at the same time that no packages have
    reverted and look for new packages introduced using /usr/doc.

Reply to: