On 05-Jul-99, 07:49 (CDT), Roland Rosenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 04 Jul 1999, Steve Greenland wrote: > > Agreed, users should not be forced to upgrade unnecessarily, nor > > accross-the-board, and we should make that as painlesl *as > > reasonably feasible*. > > That's what I mean.
But that's different than "without *any* drawbacks". > But for the /usr/doc vs. /usr/share/doc topic this means, that the > user has to upgrade _all_ packages (Presumed that _all_ developers > rebuild _all_ packages according to FHS soon, which isn't very > realistic). No, they don't have to upgrade. They can choose between upgrading a package, or accepting that for the packages they choose not to upgrade, they'll have to continue to use /usr/doc/. Actually, I'm not against the symlinks; I think they're a reasonable idea. It's just that when people start tossing out statements that sound like "Debian is committed to letting you continue to use the four-year-old version of package x without *any* drawbacks", my alarms go off. There *are* going to be drawbacks if a user chooses not to upgrade some packages. Steve
