Santiago Vila wrote: > Now that potato has been released, I propose that we start deprecating > the /usr/doc compatibility symlinks, at the same time we make > using /usr/share/doc a nearly-release-goal for woody.
Have you read http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte-9909/msg00023.html and http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-ctte-9908/msg00038.html lately? Quoting the Tech Committee's decision: | 1. Policy 3.X mandates that packages that move the docs to | /usr/share/doc must provide a compatibility symlink in /usr/doc. | This shall allow packages to incrementally move to policy 3.X, | while providing compatibility with older systems. | (/usr/doc/package symlink is handled by package) | | Thus, potato ships with a full /usr/doc/ (some of which is symlinks), | and a partial /usr/share/doc. This is where we are now. And I stress that the transition is currently *incomplete*: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/doc>cat /etc/debian_version woody [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/doc>find . -maxdepth 1 -type d |wc -l 187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/doc>find /usr/share/doc -maxdepth 1 -type d |wc -l 961 | 2. Post potato, we continue the transition, with the symlinks in | place. Before freeze, we file important bugs against any | package that has not been moved over (in one and a half | release periods, we may be actually able to accomplish this), | with NMU-fests to bring over the others. We seem to be well on our way to accomplishing this for woody, with about 83% of packages converted. | Thus, potato+1 (woody) ships with a full /usr/share/doc, and a | /usr/doc full of symlinks. | | 3. At a later date, another policy (say, 4.X) shall ask for | packages to no longer provide the link (and possibly remove | links from /usr/doc). We can also provide a script (possibly | in base-files postinst) that rm's symlinks from within | /usr/doc. woody+1 may ship with such a script. (there was a | proposal as well that potato+2 (woody+1) ships with just the | prerms, and not the base file script, and potato+3 ships | with the base-file script, but I am not sure this long a | reversion period is required). I have to object to efforts to change and short-circuit the Tech Committee's decision. I also really hate reopening this whole issue. Can we just not follow the plan we went through so much trouble to agree on in the first place? -- see shy jo
