On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 03:53:47PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 04:54:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Then for woody+1 we let people drop the scripts whenever they feel > > like. Crufty symlinks get removed when everyone updates to a new > > base-files that rm's symlinks from within /usr/doc in its postinst on > > upgrade, or something similar. > So all new packages will have to depend on this particular version of > base-files or newer, or there is still no guarantee that the link gets > removed.
Erm, no, they don't need to declare any such dependency -- the package works with or without such a symlink. Furthermore, the symlink will get removed as soon as (a) the user upgrades to a version of Debian that isn't meant to have the symlinks, or (b) the user gets annoyed and gets rid of it him or herself. I fail to see what the big problem with fairly obvious symlinks existing on a system that's halfway between two significantly different file system standards. I also can't see admins being particularly bothered by the existance of such symlinks on such systems. OTOH, it *is* inconvenient to have documentation scattered inconsistently between /usr/doc and /usr/share/doc. We've even had user complaints on this list about it. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred. ``There's nothing worse than people with a clue. They're always disagreeing with you.'' -- Andrew Over
pgp5ybK7lVoBb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
