On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 09:04:08PM +1030, Ron wrote: > On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 10:32:30AM +0100, Robert Millan [ackstorm] wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 04:54:48AM +1030, Ron wrote: > > > The Suggests seems like a friendly compromise between "every binary > > > should have a man page" and the fact that the man pages have been > > > declared non-free. > > > > > > I could remove the links entirely and simply accept the former bug > > > until we have free docs again, but I really don't think this is worth > > > an entirely new non-free source package, just for a couple of symlinks. > > > > Why don't you check in postinst wether the actual manpages exist, and > > set the symlinks only if they do? > > We'd have to pre-depend on a non-free package for that to be reliable > though.
Suggests is enough. You don't need to rely on cpp-doc's postinst having been executed (since manpages are part of data.tar.gz), so if cpp-doc and mingw32 are installed in the same run, everything is ok: thread1: install cpp-doc data.tar.gz thread2: install mingw32 data.tar.gz synchronization thread1: process cpp-doc postinst thread2: process mingw32 postinst. cpp-doc's data.tar.gz is granted to be installed. Anyway, I think it's a much worse bug to spam users with daily rubish email than to ship a package plainly without manpages. So if you have to choose, I'd pick the latter (the average mingw32 user is smart enough to figure out that gcc/cpp docs will work fine for *-gcc/*-cpp equivalents). -- Robert Millan ACK STORM, S.L. - http://www.ackstorm.es/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
