Santiago Vila Doncel wrote: > > Fabrizio Polacco wrote: > > Yes, make this symlink (ln -s ../share/doc /usr/doc) on freshly > > installed systems (where /usr/share/docs will really exist), while > > make the opposite (ln -s ../../doc /usr/share/doc) on existing > > systems (where /usr/doc is still there). > > Please, do not make any symlink. > > dpkg might get confused when removing a package if a directory > uncompresses on a symlink-pointing-to-a-directory. >
Hummm, if this is true then we have a problem with current "doc-linux" standard, which installs a symlink to a directory. I would like to hear Ian or Klee about this. Anyway, the symlinks that I was talking about are installed by postinst (should check which directory is present and symlinks to the other location), so probably this is not a problem here. The same applies to the removal (should check the database before renaming the directory, to create a "pseudo-conflict" with any package that still installs using the old path). Fabrizio -- | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Pluto Leader - Debian Developer & Happy Debian 1.3.1 User - vi-holic | 6F7267F5 fingerprint 57 16 C4 ED C9 86 40 7B 1A 69 A1 66 EC FB D2 5E > Just because Red Hat do it doesn't mean it's a good idea. [Ian J.]
