Re: Re^2: Debian Weekly News - August 10th, 1999
On 14 Aug 1999, Marco Budde wrote:
> PS> > /usr/share/doc issue: "I request all developers to NOT move to the FHS
> PS> > right now.
>
> Why? The FHS is part of the policy, so we have to use it.
>
> PS> /usr/doc and /usr/share/doc as a result, I want to upload a new version
> PS> soon which has made the transition to FHS as per the policy docs.
>
> Great.
>
> PS> So what is it? I can't keep up with debian-policy, I just look what's in
> PS> the docs and that states to use /usr/share/doc ...
>
> I would suggest to use the FHS.
To make the discussion less emotional I want to say a word from
a developer which has packages of less importance:
1) At the current time I have less time to maintain my packages.
2) I'm really happy that I managed to convert all my packages to FHS
despite this fact. (Not all are uploaded yet but there are
other reasons.)
3) I will definitely not downgrade my packages to older policy
because I have no time to play around with my packages each week.
That's my situation. I'd suggest to let developers decide, if there
are really importand things which someone could search in /usr/doc.
If not let them upgrade their packages step by step. There are so
many packages and the date of freeze is not as far as you may think.
And, keep in mind, the name of the thing is "unstable". So let the
packages upgrade to FHS if they don't break the main functionality
of the beast.
But, to say it clearly, I really think that packages which are based
on the doc-stuff should be converted sane and there we should do as
the project leader suggested.
Kind regards
Andreas.
Reply to: