[a second followup to cover one point more accurately, and to add some
details to another]
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have a couple of things to say about this proposal. I think
> that we have a bad track record when it comes to merely deferring the
> issue until a
Hi,
>>"Mike" == Mike Goldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mike> Given then a choice between automatically moving all docs back
Mike> to /usr/doc or moving all legacy packages to /usr/share/doc, I
Mike> would choose the latter, since this is compliant with FHS which
Mike> is our eventual goal.
Richard Braakman wrote:
> Mike Goldman wrote:
> > Therefore, I formally object to this proposal.
>
> You have given reasons for not liking the proposal, but no reasons for
> it being unviable. I think a formal objection is far too strong.
I think it is both undesirable and unnecessary, neither b
Hi,
>>"Mike" == Mike Goldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mike> I happen to disagree very much with the symlink proposals I have thus
Mike> far seen, as well. While it may be convenient for users to access the
Mike> documentation as though it were in /usr/doc, when it had in fact moved,
Mike>
On Sun, Aug 08, 1999 at 10:11:56AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> I just realized something. With all this furur over /usr/share/doc,
> we seem to have skipped right over the question of where do arch-dependant
> example files go. Where?
/usr/bin. =p
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 07:57:38PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > > * If so, what syntax should we use?
> > > - My choice would be the "package (>= 42 i386)" syntax,
> > > as it's the least intrusive choice.
> >
> > allright. But allow a seperator betwee
I just realized something. With all this furur over /usr/share/doc,
we seem to have skipped right over the question of where do arch-dependant
example files go. Where?
--
see shy jo
Mike Goldman wrote:
> Therefore, I formally object to this proposal.
You have given reasons for not liking the proposal, but no reasons for
it being unviable. I think a formal objection is far too strong.
Richard Braakman
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.0.1.0
Following up my objection to #42477, I propose the following transitional
plan for migrating files from /usr/doc to /usr/share/doc when potato
releases.
1. Base-files should be modified to execute a script, automatically
migrating all directories in /usr/d
I observe that several very large packages have already moved to
/usr/share/doc. Moving them back to /usr/doc will require not
inconsiderable time and inconvenience. This would be in itself not
cause for objection if it were a step forward. However, it is clearly
our goal eventually to have all
10 matches
Mail list logo
