At 2018-11-13T17:02:49+0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> G. Branden Robinson writes ("Shouldn't shipping broken symlinks be against
> policy?"):
> > Not reopening, but I have some questions for the Policy team.
> ...
> > I could have sworn you were incorrect, but sure enough, I read §10.5
> > carefully and grepped the rest of the policy manual and could find no
> > such prohibition.
>
> I don't think there is anything *inherently* wrong in shipping a
> broken symlink.I almost do. :-D > But if a broken symlink causes some kind of malfunction then that > seems to be just a bug. Not every bug is a bug because it contravenes > policy. Some bugs are just bugs :-). > > > Well, when a package ships a man page, I expect something more > > illuminating to happen than: > > > > $ man rust-gdb > > /usr/bin/man: warning: /usr/share/man/man1/rust-gdb.1.gz is a dangling > > symlink > > No manual entry for rust-gdb > > See 'man 7 undocumented' for help when manual pages are not available. > > I agree that this is untidy and undesirable. I don't see any good > reason why one would want to do this rather than shipping the > rust-gdb.1.gz symlink in the same package as the thing it points to. > > I guess the maintainer will also think this is a bug. No; he closed it, and cited Policy's lack of a prohibition of shipping broken symlinks in support of the present arrangement. > Did anyone report it ? That would be me. -- Regards, Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
