On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 11:25:37AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote: > On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 09:40:09AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote: > [...] > > > Testing whether this directory exist should be enough, isn't it? > > > > It doesn't solve the case where a package has a valid reason for having > > an empty directory. > > It does, entry is not removed if directory exist.
Ok, i didn't notice this change from stefano's proposal. > [...] > > Well, but if you fix it once, and then the user install a broken library > > package after the clenup script was run, it will be broken again. > > But it can't happen with 'apt-get dist-upgrade' due to dependencies, No, it can't happen, only if everyone rebuild the current libraries. > I also have another argument in favor of the quick removal of dh_ocamlld > and friends. > Imagine when sarge is released in 2 years an OCaml user which gives Hey, wasn't sarge supposed to be the proof that we can do quick releases, and happen in 6 month or such ??? > Debian a try. He is told that OCaml dll path is managed by 3 files, > and wondered: "Hey, these guys are crazy, upstream states that all > libraries must go in a well defined place, so what is this crap?". > We were complaining that this issue had to be solved upstream, so if > it is we should not introduce more complexity than needed. Ok, ... This is a good argument. I will implement this solution nextly. Friendly, Sven Luther
