Re: /usr/doc
On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, Chris Waters wrote:
> Oh, no no no! We're not reopening this can of worms! We had weeks of
> loud arguments about how to do this, and finally had to resort to the
> tech ctte to get a ruling. Now we have a plan, and we're sticking
> with it!
That was years ago. And, now that we are at this point, we should do it
right, and not following the recommendation given by some group of people long
ago that didn't forsee this problem.
> Yes, a half-empty /usr/doc is the next stage of the plan, just like a
> half-empty /usr/share/doc was an earlier stage of the plan.
Er, no.
Having a half-empty /usr/share/doc is not a problem, because /usr/doc
contained links to the new location.
/usr/share/doc was a new feature. There was no need to maintain links from
/usr/share/doc to /usr/doc.
/usr/doc is an old feature. We need to maintain it's use, and not have a
window were it's functionality is limited.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: