On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > Sure, but lacking /usr/share/doc is, aiui, a non-RC issue as it stands > > > (since there seems to be some sort of deadlock in working out what to do > > > about it)... > > In a message sent in this thread only a good hour before this mail you > > said you want that RC are filed for packages lacking /usr/share/doc [...] > > Obviously, I misunderstand it then. > > So, what, exactly are we doing about /usr/doc and /usr/share/doc for > woody? > > I propose we make the /usr/doc/foo -> /usr/share/doc/foo kludge mandatory > for all packages in woody, and file RC bugs on them ASAP. It's functional, > it's already in policy, we know how to do it, and we can get rid of in > the future without major hassle. >...
The best check for the /usr/doc/foo -> /usr/share/doc/foo transition is to check for the standards version. If we want to finish this transition for woody someone has to: - file RC bugs for standards version < 3.0 - later check if all the fixed packages went into testing > Cheers, > aj cu Adrian -- Nicht weil die Dinge schwierig sind wagen wir sie nicht, sondern weil wir sie nicht wagen sind sie schwierig.
