Re: usr/man vs usr/share/man?

[ron@microtronics.com.au (Ron)]

> [Earlier today I posted saying I didn't think this was a problem.]
> 
> [I was wrong.]
> 
> On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 09:20:38AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >         Is this not just an issue of swetting MANPATH defaults?
> 
> I'm very glad that you brought this up.  
> 
> There's still a problem here:  If someone upgrades a slink system
> without installing all of potato (perhaps using apt-get install), and
> the installed packages supply /usr/share/man man pages and it doesn't
> have a dependency on some fhs capable version of man-db then yes:
> there's a problem.

This (and many other similar issues) seems to make a pretty good
argument for releasing potato as Debian3.0 and making it very
clear that this is a *major* upgrade.  If people install some
potato packages and _not_ glibc2.1 they will have problems too..

perhaps what we should do is have a debian3.0-upgrade metapackage,
which has dependancies on all the major package upgrades required
to make a smooth transition from slink.

just another 2c down the slot..

best,
Ron.