> > > I'm almost at the point that I'm ready to agree with the small and growing > > > group of people who are saying screw the transition---the only thing it > > > really hurts is /usr/doc/pac<tab> and being a creature of habit that > > > annoys me. But I'd deal with it. > > > > I think this is the whole problem with this issue. You are not creating a > > distribution for you. Debian has many more users than me and you. We should > > try to make them comfortable and we all know that nearly every user will > > hate the transition as it's being carried out now. > > Then someone needs to come up with a solution, NOW. Not in a month, not > in three months, not after we release potato. I don't like having two doc > directories to look in either, but we seem to be running out of other > options.
Uh? That's not true. The symlink answer works. And this was handled pretty bad: 1) The update to the policy was obviously bad. It needed more discussion. Bad for the policy editors. 2) People used the `formal objection' mechanism to stop the answer just because the didn't like. I don't think this was right. And the people who did it are starting to realize that too.. =) 3) If this `formal obection' mechanism worked this way here, then it's badly designed. People can use it for normal votes... so if 40 people likes a proposal and 5 don't the proposal get dumped. 4) I didn't like the reasons given at all. Optimization is the mother of disaster.. (why don't we design a package format using 4 bits for the package section, 1 bit for... =) ). Having a prerm script for a long time is a bad thing? a price too high? come on! Having to add 2 or 3 lines to a debian/rules is too much work for a maintainer? come on! I think the ordered list of priorities to take into account should be made a policy document... =) (humm.. perhaps that's not a bad idea after all...) Bye!
