In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gordon Matzigkeit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marcus's argument here is most compelling. It is not the present cost
> of Manoj's proposal that is prohibitive, it is the future cost of all
> those prerm scripts. And so, I formally object to this proposal.
On Sat, Jul 31, 1999 at 10:16:40PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Yes, but all these packages were foolishly changed before debian as a whole
> decided what to do.
Not true. Policy 3 mandates /usr/share/doc. My packages were not
changed before Policy 3 was uploaded.
> There is no reason they cannot
At 22:16 -0700 1999-07-31, Joey Hess wrote:
__> ls -asCF /usr/share/doc/
total 18
1 ./ 1 doc-base/ 1 libc6/ 1 procmail/
2 ../ 1 dpkg-ftp/ 1 libc6-dev/ 1 xboard/
1 HTML/ 1 fdflush/ 1 libc6-pic/
1 base-files/
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Jason> Well, say we provide a /usr/share/doc -> /usr/doc symlink -
> Jason> couldn't those people who want to do this simply mv /usr/doc
> Jason> to /usr/share and put the symlink in as /usr/doc ? Presto
> Jason> chango they get what they want, we get what we want :>
>
On Sat, Jul 24, 1999 at 01:36:45AM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> If different releases are
> installed on different machines, there will be clashes between machines,
> and there is no mechanism to resolve them.
"Note, however, that /usr/share is generally not intended to be shared
by different O
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
>
>On 21 Jul 1999, Philip Hands wrote:
>
>> Gordon Matzigkeit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Can somebody remind me again why it's so important to be FHS-compliant
>> > on this issue? Why not just change the few /usr/share/doc packages
>> > back to
On Thu, Jul 22, 1999 at 07:57:31AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 1999 at 04:08:26PM +1000, you wrote:
> > Perhaps someone would like to upload a .deb that does nothing more than
> > maintain symlinks?
> > Something as simple as having a /etc/cron.daily script that does:
> > [ -d
On Thu, Jul 22, 1999 at 04:08:26PM +1000, you wrote:
> Perhaps someone would like to upload a .deb that does nothing more than
> maintain symlinks?
>
> Something as simple as having a /etc/cron.daily script that does:
>
> [ -d /usr/doc ] || exit 0
>
> cd /usr/share/doc
> for di
On Wed, Jul 21, 1999 at 11:33:52PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Bang!! That was the 4rth formal objection, and thus this
> proposal dies. It can be revived as a general resolution, but I do
> not have the enrgy to do that. We now have no amendment on the table
> to move the /usr/doc
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 40706 [REJECTED 21/7/99] /usr/share/doc vs. /usr/doc transition
Bug#40706: [AMENDMENT 17/7/99] /usr/share/doc vs. /usr/doc transition
Changed bug title.
> severity 40706 fixed
Bug#40706: [REJECTED 21/7/99] /usr/share/doc vs. /usr/doc transition
retitle 40706 [REJECTED 21/7/99] /usr/share/doc vs. /usr/doc transition
severity 40706 fixed
thanks
Hi,
>>"Gord" == Gordon Matzigkeit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Gord> Marcus's argument here is most compelling. It is not the
Gord> present cost of Manoj's proposal that is prohibitive, it is the
Hi,
>>"Jason" == Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jason> Well, say we provide a /usr/share/doc -> /usr/doc symlink -
Jason> couldn't those people who want to do this simply mv /usr/doc
Jason> to /usr/share and put the symlink in as /usr/doc ? Presto
Jason> chango they get what they
On 21 Jul 1999, Philip Hands wrote:
> Gordon Matzigkeit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Can somebody remind me again why it's so important to be FHS-compliant
> > on this issue? Why not just change the few /usr/share/doc packages
> > back to /usr/doc,
>
> Because people who want to save dis
Gordon Matzigkeit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can somebody remind me again why it's so important to be FHS-compliant
> on this issue? Why not just change the few /usr/share/doc packages
> back to /usr/doc,
Because people who want to save disk space by mounting architecture
independant director
Marcus's argument here is most compelling. It is not the present cost
of Manoj's proposal that is prohibitive, it is the future cost of all
those prerm scripts. And so, I formally object to this proposal.
However, Manoj's arguments against other ways of moving to
/usr/share/doc still hold: any o
15 matches
Mail list logo
