Re: /usr/doc
On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, Joey Hess wrote:
> No, I want to see no /usr/doc. If you want to make some symlink be my guest,
> but /usr/doc is a FHS violation.
So? We have other FHS violations. We don't follow it strictly.
> The transition plan, which you have had 3 years to comment on, specifies
> that,
In the past, how could I comment on something that had not yet occured? Are
plans that were made years ago set in stone, and can't be changed?
I don't care how important the people were who made any decision on any
topic, in the past. If that decision is not correct in the current
environment, then the decision is wrong.
> The aim of this transition has never been to end up with a FHS-violating
> /usr/doc symlink, and I protest the idea of supplying one being dragged
> in at this late date. If you are unable to change your habits, you can
> of course set one up locally. Removing all of /usr/doc and making such
> symlink reportedly works.
See the Social Contract.
> If someone is interested in writing and testing a /usr/doc nuking script
> and getting it into base-files, be my guest but do note the past threads
> on the topic of the pitfalls of such a script.
This is what I was waiting for. Doing so.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: