Guillem Jover <guil...@debian.org> writes: > On Wed, 2012-02-08 at 13:19:17 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Well, it does mean that you might be lacking important information >> because the other changelog wouldn't be present on the system. > While the implicit Replaces seems the easy way out, it just seems even > more fragile than the shared files approach. Yes, this is definitely true. I was mentioning it as an easy way out, but it's aesthetically unappealing. > And while the binNMU changelog issues might seem like a corner case, > it's just a symptom of something that's not quite right. Also true. In fact, it's something that's been bothering me for a long time with linked doc directories. I'd like to prohibit them in more cases so that we get the binNMU changelogs on disk. > Instead of this, I'd rather see the shared files approach just dropped > completely, and /usr/share/doc/ files for “Multi-Arch: same” packages be > installed under /usr/share/doc/pkgname:arch/. This would solve all these > problems in a clean way for the common case with just the two or three > mandated files (changelog, changelog.Debian and copyright), if a package > provides lots more files then they should be split anyway into either a > libfooN-common libfoo-doc, or similar. And finally this would not be > really confusing, given that one of the last interface changes was to > make all dpkg output for all “Multi-Arch: same” packages be always > arch-qualified. The only thing I'm worried about here is that we lose something from the UI perspective. That's going to be a change historically from where we've told users to look, and it's a little awkward. But, thinking it over, the set of packages that we're talking about is fairly limited. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87liodrttk....@windlord.stanford.edu
