I thought that it was planned that /usr/doc not exist for the sarge
release. However, I still see symlinks in /usr/doc is this considered a
bug or are we waiting until sarge+1 to do this?
BTW - I still see one package that installs files directly into /usr/doc
usr/doc/examples/ucbmpeg/mpeg_encode
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003, Chris Cheney wrote:
> I thought that it was planned that /usr/doc not exist for the sarge
> release. However, I still see symlinks in /usr/doc is this considered a
> bug or are we waiting until sarge+1 to do this?
>
> BTW - I still see one package that installs files directly i
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2003, Chris Cheney wrote:
>
> > I thought that it was planned that /usr/doc not exist for the sarge
> > release. However, I still see symlinks in /usr/doc is this considered a
> > bug or are we waiting until sarge+1 to do this?
> >
> > BTW
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 01:59:10AM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
> BTW - I still see one package that installs files directly into /usr/doc
>
> usr/doc/examples/ucbmpeg/mpeg_encode/nosearch.param graphics/ucbmpeg
Where's this data from? The version of ucbmpeg in testing and unstable
appears to use
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 08:57:37AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 01:59:10AM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
> > BTW - I still see one package that installs files directly into /usr/doc
> >
> > usr/doc/examples/ucbmpeg/mpeg_encode/nosearch.param graphics/ucbmpeg
>
> Where's thi
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 03:25:01AM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
| I grepped a current Contents-i386.gz for usr/doc, and after examining
| the file itself I notice it is from a comment in the front of
| Contents-i386.gz... ARGH!!!
>From the comment at the top of Contents-i386.gz:
This file
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 09:50:41AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Does anyone have a good estimation about the number of packages which
> currently do this? (That is, assume *blindly* that /usr/doc exists).
I have 687 packages on my system and 35 of them have symlinks in
/usr/doc. If the number on
Santiago Vila wrote:
> Does anyone have a good estimation about the number of packages which
> currently do this? (That is, assume *blindly* that /usr/doc exists).
Packages that
a) don't use debconf ( < 5%)
b) have not completed the transition yet (85 of 657 here)
c) happen to be written by Mano
* Joey Hess
| a) don't use debconf ( < 5%)
s/debconf/debhelper/, I presume?
--
Tollef Fog Heen,''`.
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' :
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 10:26:03 -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
>> Does anyone have a good estimation about the number of packages
>> which currently do this? (That is, assume *blindly* that /usr/doc
>> exists).
> Packages that
> a) don't use debconf ( < 5%)
> b) h
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 10:26:03 -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Santiago Vila wrote:
> >> Does anyone have a good estimation about the number of packages
> >> which currently do this? (That is, assume *blindly* that /usr/doc
> >> exists).
11 matches
Mail list logo