Re: /usr/doc symlinks

2003-10-08 Thread Santiago Vila
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 10:26:03 -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > Santiago Vila wrote: > >> Does anyone have a good estimation about the number of packages > >> which currently do this? (That is, assume *blindly* that /usr/doc > >> exists).

Re: /usr/doc symlinks

2003-10-08 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 10:26:03 -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Santiago Vila wrote: >> Does anyone have a good estimation about the number of packages >> which currently do this? (That is, assume *blindly* that /usr/doc >> exists). > Packages that > a) don't use debconf ( < 5%) > b) h

Re: /usr/doc symlinks

2003-10-08 Thread Tollef Fog Heen
* Joey Hess | a) don't use debconf ( < 5%) s/debconf/debhelper/, I presume? -- Tollef Fog Heen,''`. UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' :

Re: /usr/doc symlinks

2003-10-08 Thread Joey Hess
Santiago Vila wrote: > Does anyone have a good estimation about the number of packages which > currently do this? (That is, assume *blindly* that /usr/doc exists). Packages that a) don't use debconf ( < 5%) b) have not completed the transition yet (85 of 657 here) c) happen to be written by Mano

Re: /usr/doc symlinks

2003-10-05 Thread Graham Wilson
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 09:50:41AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > Does anyone have a good estimation about the number of packages which > currently do this? (That is, assume *blindly* that /usr/doc exists). I have 687 packages on my system and 35 of them have symlinks in /usr/doc. If the number on

Re: /usr/doc symlinks

2003-10-05 Thread Cameron Patrick
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 03:25:01AM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote: | I grepped a current Contents-i386.gz for usr/doc, and after examining | the file itself I notice it is from a comment in the front of | Contents-i386.gz... ARGH!!! >From the comment at the top of Contents-i386.gz: This file

Re: /usr/doc symlinks

2003-10-05 Thread Chris Cheney
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 08:57:37AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 01:59:10AM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote: > > BTW - I still see one package that installs files directly into /usr/doc > > > > usr/doc/examples/ucbmpeg/mpeg_encode/nosearch.param graphics/ucbmpeg > > Where's thi

Re: /usr/doc symlinks

2003-10-05 Thread Colin Watson
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 01:59:10AM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote: > BTW - I still see one package that installs files directly into /usr/doc > > usr/doc/examples/ucbmpeg/mpeg_encode/nosearch.param graphics/ucbmpeg Where's this data from? The version of ucbmpeg in testing and unstable appears to use

Re: /usr/doc symlinks

2003-10-05 Thread Santiago Vila
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Sun, 5 Oct 2003, Chris Cheney wrote: > > > I thought that it was planned that /usr/doc not exist for the sarge > > release. However, I still see symlinks in /usr/doc is this considered a > > bug or are we waiting until sarge+1 to do this? > > > > BTW

Re: /usr/doc symlinks

2003-10-05 Thread Santiago Vila
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003, Chris Cheney wrote: > I thought that it was planned that /usr/doc not exist for the sarge > release. However, I still see symlinks in /usr/doc is this considered a > bug or are we waiting until sarge+1 to do this? > > BTW - I still see one package that installs files directly i

/usr/doc symlinks

2003-10-05 Thread Chris Cheney
I thought that it was planned that /usr/doc not exist for the sarge release. However, I still see symlinks in /usr/doc is this considered a bug or are we waiting until sarge+1 to do this? BTW - I still see one package that installs files directly into /usr/doc usr/doc/examples/ucbmpeg/mpeg_encode