Re: fixing up /usr/doc
Zack Brown wrote:
> On 24 Dec 1998, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> > The point of /usr/doc/packagename/ is not only the docs, but as you
> > must have noticed, the copyright and changelog information.
More precisely, the point of /usr/doc/packagename is NOT the docs! It
is primarily for package information like copyright and packaging notes,
and a place to store *supplemental* documentation. The proper place for
user documentation on a Debian system is in /usr/man.
> I know... but shouldn't that information be somewhere else? I mean, it
> renders the directory useless. If you have to have copyright information
> in /usr/doc, then at least put the real docs somewhere else so people
> can get to them. it's a real pain wading through that directory looking
> for docs.
You shouldn't *be* wading through that directory looking for docs.
That's not what it's for.
Every program and library is supposed to contain at least one man page.
The man page *should* mention any supplemental documentation that's
available. Failure to do so should probably be considered a bug. Info
and html docs should likewise be available without digging around in
Basically, you shouldn't be looking in usr/doc/packagename unless you've
been directed to do so by other documentation -- and that should tell
you *which* directory, so you don't have to hunt around. So,
complaining that it's not productive to hunt around rather misses the
point. Complaining that some packages encourage you to do so, by e.g.
not providing adequate man pages, would be rather more to the point.
I'd join you in that complaint.
Chris Waters firstname.lastname@example.org | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or email@example.com | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.