On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 03:05:19PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > The reason I'm suggesting this is that there is talk of dpkg being
> > able to selectively ignore (not install) certain directory trees.
> > Now, if someone decides to ignore /usr/share/doc, the original method
> > will break, but this one will still work. [...]
>
> I fully agree. I had to remove /usr/share/doc and /usr/doc in my home
> computer to free up some disk space, and I am worried that some packages
> could behave differently now. As an example, this is from debconf-tiny.postrm
> in potato:
So maybe we should have a separate proposal which says something like
"Packages should not assume that /usr/share/doc or the deprecated
/usr/doc exists on a system, and should behave gracefully in its
absence."
And perhaps file a bug report against debconf-tiny.
> > Please keep the discussion to the BTS only, which is automatically
> > copied to -policy, so that this doesn't get discussed on three mailing
> > lists.
>
> X-Debbugs-Cc: is your friend :-)
Not quite; I copied it there, but I'm not sure whether people will
reply to all of the lists as well :-(
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg
Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
