On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 03:43:58PM -0700, Richard A Nelson wrote: > On Tue, 2 Nov 2010, Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe wrote: > >nope, it's not fixed: > I suspect this is due to my building binary-arch and binary-all, and > Debian buildd machines building just binary-arch. > > Coupled with the fact that all the other /usr/share/doc/<package> > directories are simply symlinks to /usr/share/doc/sendmail-doc - which > has caused other problems (removing just one package, etc). > > I'll have to give this some thought, and an open to any ideas !
Honestly, I never really liked that "ship doc/package/ files but symlink doc/package preinst" hack. I understand the attempt to save disk-space. I'd personally prefer an approach not to ship any doc/package/ files at all but to ship a doc/package -> sendmail symlink instead. Several packages do that. IMHO this approach is somewhat cleaner. sendmail-doc could do the same and ship its additional doc-files in doc/sendmail explicitely. However, this would require some base-package that all other sendmail packages depend on, something like sendmail-common. There would be no noteworthy space-overhead with this approach compared with the current. And it would save you all those preinst control files. I don't see a package that could play this role currently. The sendmail package itself doesn't ship much else than doc-files (and some empty directories), but since it's meant to pull in all the other packages required to install a fully functional MTA it cannot play this role. The only catch with this approach is if you once decide to replace the shipped symlink with a directory - this requires manual intervention to remove the previous symlink in preinst since dpkg follows symlinks when extracting to directories (as you know well :)). regards Mario -- User sind wie ideale Gase - sie verteilen sich gleichmaessig ueber alle Platten
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
