Re: Bug#69311: Woody is now clean of /usr/doc
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> s/mandate/suggest/. (mandating would make all packages
> suddenly get serious bugs).
I'm pretty sure that last time this came up we worked out that debhelper
generated postinsts already meet all three of those criteria. So no, it
would merely result in 10% of packages getting serious bugs, and
probably many less, since the example in policy also meets all three
criteria. Realstically, it would require that that 10% be examined by
hand, and maybe a few percent would get serious bugs.
> Would all this not be achieved by merely removing the
> directive to add the symlinks, and adding something to the effect
> that symlinks in /usr/doc are obsolete and deprecated?
Yes. But wouldn't it mean filing serious bugs on all the packages
above? :-P
> Should packages remove old symlinks in /usr/doc? (I think
> packages should indeed clean up the old cruft). In which case,
> something like
> if /usr/doc exists, AND /usr/doc is not a symlink to /usr/share/doc,
> AND /usr/doc/PACKAGE exists, AND /usr/doc/PACKAGE is a symlink;
> then
> unlink /usr/doc/PACKAGE
> fi
> (note that symlinks to a dir which is not the same as /usr/share/doc/
> should still have the symlinks removed)
Debhelper generated prerms already deal with this properly. The symlink
is removed on upgrade, and currently reinstated by the postinst, but
if the postinst stops doing that (which I can enable with a mere flip of
a switch in debhelper), the symnlink goes away exactly as desired.
--
see shy jo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: