Second.
Chris Waters wrote:
> > 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 latter date
>
> This proposal defers nothing. It merely mandates a *delay* for the
> transition. Granted, it
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 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 ch
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 un
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
Okay, my two cents on the issue. I hope I'm not just adding more noise
to the ratio, but since I have no particular policy axe to grind,
perhaps I may be a bit more impartial
On Mon, Aug 02, 1999 at 04:06:15PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Thanks for reopening the debate, Chris.
>
> I am
7 matches
Mail list logo
