On 20 Aug 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> What is wrong with the plan currently in place?
It will slow down the goal of FHS compliance (inclusing an empty
/usr/doc) even more.
I thought the plan was that for each given Debian distribution, we
should be telling our users to look for docs in a single place. We
have also agreed that such single place is /usr/doc in potato and
/usr/share/doc in woody. Therefore, the symlinks are not required in
woody.
If they are not required, we should not consider as a bug that they
are missing. So the logical step is to modify policy so that they are
not required by policy.
Please, keep the principle of authority aside for a while ("the T. C. decided
such and such and we should do it that way letter by letter") and answer
the following question: Which is the flaw in the above reasoning?
Thanks.
