Anthony Towns wrote:
> I think though, probably because policy wasn't very clear about this,
> that packages in potato already look in /usr/share/doc for documentation,
> so they're already broken, and this may no longer really matter.
At least apache seems to still use /usr/doc. dhelp uses some i
Santiago Vila wrote:
> Please note that not every dependency or conflict is explicit. You
> can't read new manpages using an old enough man-db package, unless you
> make a little bit of tweaking in the configuration file, and we don't
> speak about "breakage" because of the need of this tweaking.
On Sat, Aug 26, 2000 at 08:58:07PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > If you care to understand those issues, you might want to take a look
> > at the debian-ctte traffic from a year ago.
> A year ago dpkg did not have an important feature today it has.
This only means we can change the recommendatio
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 23 Aug 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > Woody shall have a full /usr/share/doc/ when released, while
> > > allowing for partial upgrades from potato all the way, under the
> > > plan.
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 02:03:06PM +0200, Santiago Vila wr
On 23 Aug 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Woody shall have a full /usr/share/doc/ when released, while
> > allowing for partial upgrades from potato all the way, under the
> > plan.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 02:03:06PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> The "partial upgrades" issue is a myth. As I s
On 23 Aug 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Woody shall have a full /usr/share/doc/ when released, while
> allowing for partial upgrades from potato all the way, under the
> plan.
The "partial upgrades" issue is a myth. As I said, we have never
guaranteed that *every* conceivable partial up
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> 930 packages when looking for usr/doc and
Santiago> 3565/(3565+930) = 79% of packages already use /usr/share/doc.
Santiago> This is exactly where I think there is a major flaw in the
Santiago> original plan: Waiting for al
On 22 Aug 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I see woody release and making not having docs in
> /usr/share/doc/ as an RC bug as being the stick that shall
> ensuer compliance (I currently have 170 packages on *my* machine that
> are not compliant).
> __> zgrep ^usr/doc Contents-i386.gz |
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> On 20 Aug 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> What is wrong with the plan currently in place?
Santiago> It will slow down the goal of FHS compliance (inclusing an empty
Santiago> /usr/doc) even more.
Umm, speed of conf
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 12:20:08PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> Things have *not* gone as planned so far. So, saying "stick with the
> plan, stick with the plan" seems a bit myopic. We're already not
> sticking with the plan, which involved releasing Potato in time for
> Christmas '99, IIRC.
>
>
Chris Waters wrote:
> The tech committee's decision makes a lot of sense given their premise
> that Potato was about to be released, and we wouldn't have time to
> change all the packages. But that premise proved wrong, we did have
> time to change the vast majority (over 80% by JH's count) of the
(Side comment: Joey, setting mail-followup-to both the bug number and
the policy list, when the bug is a bug against policy, is really not a
great plan.)
On Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 03:23:39PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Have you read http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte-9909/msg00023.html and
> http://
On 20 Aug 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> What is wrong with the plan currently in place?
It will slow down the goal of FHS compliance (inclusing an empty
/usr/doc) even more.
I thought the plan was that for each given Debian distribution, we
should be telling our users to look for docs in a sin
Hi,
I think I must object to this proposal. I think nothing good
can come out of this hastening of the planned transition; espescially
since no good reaso is given as to why we must sccelrate the
transition process. What is wrong with the plan currently in place?
manoj
--
You
Santiago Vila wrote:
> Now that potato has been released, I propose that we start deprecating
> the /usr/doc compatibility symlinks, at the same time we make
> using /usr/share/doc a nearly-release-goal for woody.
Have you read http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte-9909/msg00023.html and
http://www.
On Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 08:56:29PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
[re: getting rid of symlinks in /usr/doc]
> That means it's already a bug if a package doesn't remove this link in
> it's prerm.
Ah, so it is. Good point. In that case, I withdraw my objection and
second Santiago's original proposal.
On Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 11:31:32AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 12:16:34PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Now that potato has been released, I propose that we start deprecating
> > the /usr/doc compatibility symlinks, at the same time we make
> > using /usr/share/doc a near
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, Chris Waters wrote:
> I think an addendum is needed to this proposal -- if any package *has*
> had symlinks in /usr/doc, then it needs to clean them up in its
> install scripts, now, and possibly forever.
>
> This is one of the reasons I objected to the symlinks in the first
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 12:16:34PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Now that potato has been released, I propose that we start deprecating
> the /usr/doc compatibility symlinks, at the same time we make
> using /usr/share/doc a nearly-release-goal for woody.
I think an addendum is needed to this pro
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 12:16:34PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> Now that potato has been released, I propose that we start deprecating
> the /usr/doc compatibility symlinks, at the same time we make
> using /usr/share/doc a nearly-release-goal for woody.
[...]
> I'm looking for seconds for th
On Aug 17, Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Now that potato has been released, I propose that we start deprecating
>the /usr/doc compatibility symlinks, at the same time we make
>using /usr/share/doc a nearly-release-goal for woody.
Seconded.
--
ciao,
Marco
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Now that potato has been released, I propose that we start deprecating
the /usr/doc compatibility symlinks, at the same time we make
using /usr/share/doc a nearly-release-goal for woody.
The idea is, assuming this proposal is accepted:
* We modify helper
22 matches
Mail list logo
