On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 04:25:48PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: > First of all, I'm still not convinced that this is a technical issue, > as I mentioned in my objection to Manoj's proposal. The information > is just as available whether it's found in one location or two, so > I don't see any technical problems here. It's an ease of use issue, > which, to my mind, is an aesthetic matter (albeit an important one), > not a technical one. I mean, heck, we're allowed to use sed, even > though awk and perl are easier to use and read, IMO. :-)
The argument is that there may be user authored programs or procedures which use the (admittedly simple) /usr/doc interface. However, it's true that we don't have a well developed criteria for determining what is and isn't a technical issue. [For example, my wife would say that even user interface issues are technical -- but then she needs my daughter's help when browsing the web.] > I almost hate to mention this, because I'd love to see the issue > resolved *somehow*, even if it's to have a proposal I dislike mandated > by fiat. But I'd hate to set an unfortunate precedent. If it's not a > technical issue (and I don't believe it is), then it's not a matter > for the tech committee. > > And if the tech committee *does* decide that this is in their purview, > then I'd like to point out that I have a proposal on the boards as > well, to wit, stick with /usr/doc (but continue migrating to FHS > otherwise) until Potato is frozen. See Bug#42477. This is similar to > IWJ's proposal, except that it allows us to continue working on the > not-so-user-visible FHS-compliance issues in the meantime. Thanks. > Also, some have proposed that we ignore the issue and simply continue > to migrate package-by-package. This is not my preferred solution, but > I don't think it's so unreasonable that the tech committee should > ignore it. I find it aesthetically unappealing, but technically > robust. No bug number, because this is the default that will happen > if policy isn't changed. Ok. > Oh, and I did point out a couple of very minor, but still ACTUALLY > TECHNICAL objections to Manoj's proposal. Executive summary: symlinks > have limitations, and if we add an extra layer of symlinks, we > increase the (admittedly minor) risk of bumping up against those > limitations. Ok. Thanks for being level headed, -- Raul
