> This fixes one of the major bugs in dpkg, IMO. Referenced in #2828 and > others over time. Basically this is the symlink problem in dpkg which > forced the kludge we are now using on the /usr/doc upgrade.
I'm feeling very wary about even bringing this up given the history of this debate.. but does this really mean that we could now more optimally symlink /usr/doc to /usr/share/doc and abandon the present proposal to add maintainer scripts to every package? If so, I for one would like to see that happen. I have at least one machine that I suspect will run into drive space problems as a result of the current proposal. (yes, its an old machine - no I don't really want to add new drives to it, it has 4 ide drives in it now. Yes, I deliberately packed it very full - no I don't really want to have to delete some of the packages installed on it just so I can keep the rest up to date.. ;-) best, Ron. what would be the worst case of changing our /usr/doc policy to use this single symlink? A versioned dependency on dpkg with your patch for packages that could be subject to the doc location transition??
