Re: packages with really old standards version
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Anthony Towns 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.
>...
The best check for the /usr/doc/foo -> /usr/share/doc/foo transition is to
check for the standards version. If we want to finish this transition for
woody someone has to:
- file RC bugs for standards version < 3.0
- later check if all the fixed packages went into testing
> Cheers,
> aj
cu
Adrian
--
Nicht weil die Dinge schwierig sind wagen wir sie nicht,
sondern weil wir sie nicht wagen sind sie schwierig.
Reply to: