On 5 Sep 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Unless someone else volunteers, I could come up with a
> suggested language to be included in policy. It would be
> updated with Raul's suggestions about not making all current packages
> instantly buggy, and allowing the FSSTND conforming packages to be
> legal but deprecated.
>
> I would also produce a non-policy ``strategy'' document, which
> shall include the other aspects of this proposal, namely, when
> the FSSTND would go from being deprecated to being illegal,
> and how we can get rid of symlinks later.
Mmm, let's see if I understood this "deprecated vs illegal" thing.
Suppose I decide, for the packages I have not converted yet, not to move
to /usr/share/doc until the "last minute". Will I get bug reports?
Will my packages be NMUed?
I imagine the following scenario:
slink: everybody uses /usr/doc.
potato: mix /usr/share/doc and /usr/doc but people using /usr/share/doc
should use symlinks.
potato+1: we deprecate symlinks but still allow them, make /usr/doc
illegal, and start filing bugs against packages still
using /usr/doc. [ This is of course not decided yet, it's just
an hypothesis ].
potato+2: we make symlinks illegal and start filing bugs against packages
using them. [ This is just another hypothesis ].
[ BTW: How do these hypothesis sound as a proposal? ]
Since I don't think maintaining Debian packages should be *gratuitously*
painful, what kind of technical problems would my packages cause to the
average Debian user if I decide to move from /usr/doc to /usr/share/doc in
one shot and without symlinks during the unstable stage of potato+1?
I guess if we are going to be "permissive" about packages still using
/usr/doc in potato, we should probably be permissive as well about
packages not using symlinks when they are not really needed.
Comments?
Thanks.
--
"be6eecf65d5db0cae0fc123bdefc8074" (a truly random sig)
