>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> On 20 Aug 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> What is wrong with the plan currently in place?
Santiago> It will slow down the goal of FHS compliance (inclusing an empty
Santiago> /usr/doc) even more.
Umm, speed of conformance to the FHS, though important, does
not supersede correctness, upgrdeability, and smooth transitions. See
below why I think moving now would break that.
Santiago> I thought the plan was that for each given Debian
Santiago> distribution, we should be telling our users to look for
Santiago> docs in a single place. We have also agreed that such
Santiago> single place is /usr/doc in potato and /usr/share/doc in
Santiago> woody. Therefore, the symlinks are not required in woody.
That is part of it. We also need to ensure that expectation of
finding documentation in /usr/doc no longer holds true, and user
expectation is just one of these things. Another is programs
expecting to find things in /usr/doc. Yet another is not breaking
things for people who just upgrade a few packages from the next
distribution.
If I upgrade just apache from woody, with the rest of my
installation remaining in potato -- I should not see major
breakage. Now if I try from potato to woody + 1, well, that may be
expecting too much; upgrading to a released woody would be an
acceptable answer there.
I see woody release and making not having docs in
/usr/share/doc/<pkg> as an RC bug as being the stick that shall
ensuer compliance (I currently have 170 packages on *my* machine that
are not compliant).
__> zgrep ^usr/doc Contents-i386.gz | awk '{ print $2 }' | sort -u | wc -l
737
I suggest that we should have significantly less than 737
packages that are non conformant before we decree the transition is
complete.
Santiago> If they are not required, we should not consider as a bug
Santiago> that they are missing. So the logical step is to modify
Santiago> policy so that they are not required by policy.
As I pointed out above, this is premature.
Santiago> Please, keep the principle of authority aside for a while
Santiago> ("the T. C. decided such and such and we should do it that
Santiago> way letter by letter") and answer the following question:
I never touted ``it was said by the powers that be, so this is
the way ti must be''. I meant: we went through a lot of thought and
discussion on this, and we came up with a plan; and there are reasons
behind the woody+1, woody+2 language in the messages.
Santiago> Which is the flaw in the above reasoning?
Are these good enough?
manoj
--
Be circumspect in your liaisons with women. It is better to be seen
at the opera with a man than at mass with a woman. De Maintenon
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
