Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 04:02:14PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > PROPOSAL (0.9): delay the /usr/share/doc transition
> The problem with this is that there are more than 100 packages using
> /usr/share/doc already, and there likely will be more.
I've got one package in the archive that uses /usr/share/doc, and two
more sitting here ready to go that I decided not to upload just yet.
I'm well aware of this.
That still leaves 3000+ that use /usr/doc! Or around 30 times as
many. :-)
Furthermore, the people who have jumped on /usr/share/doc already are,
for the most part, people who pay attention, and can move fairly
quickly. Otherwise, they wouldn't have migrated yet! And I'm sure
that *all* these people *knew* there was a possibility they might have
to reupload before long if we ever made a decision on this issue.
So moving back (or adding symlinks, if we decide to allow that) is not
going to be a whole lot of effort. These people are self-selected for
getting things done, and they knew the job was dangerous when they
took it. :-)
> For the effort required to undo this change, we might as well just
> come up with a symlink solution or something and move forward.
As I said, I am in favor of *allowing* symlinks, but not in favor of
*requiring* them. However, I think that should be a separate
proposal, in case people continue to object. I would almost certainly
second a proposal to make symlinks optional. I believe that there are
a couple of packages in the archive using symlinks already. It could
even be argued that this is allowed by my proposal (since it doesn't
forbid it).
So please, come up with a symlink solution. This proposal does
nothing to stop you! :-)
cheers
--
Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
