Re: Which directory to use for packagename-doc documentation files?
(I'm also replying to comments by Daniel, aj, and Nick Phillips in this
post.)
On 24-Jul-01, 18:59 (CDT), Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca> wrote:
> Might it be possible that foo-doc documents foo-bin and foo-lib
> and that there's no foo package at all? And consequently no
> /usr/share/doc/foo directory?
>
> If so, then if we must choose between _always_ /usr/share/doc/foo
> or /usr/share/doc/foo-doc, then perhaps /usr/share/doc/foo-doc is
> the only consistent choice.
Yeah.
> There's a problem: smaller packages that don't have a foo-doc
> package bundle docs in the foo package. So you'd have to know
> there's a foo-doc package in order to look in /usr/share/doc/foo-doc
Hmmm. That particular inconsistency doesn't seem so bothersome to me
(probably because I tend to have just installed foo-doc and know where
to look). But I can see that it is undesirable.
> [handle doc->foo-doc in maintainer scripts]
>
> I kinda like the postinst and postrm script idea. Any reason why
> it's bad that anybody can think of?
I actually thought of this, and decided not to suggest it because it
seems like an awful lot of work for very low benefit. And note that to
do it right, you have to deal with the symlink in both foo and foo-doc,
because you don't know what order someone might choose to install them
in.
Both AJ and Daniel suggested that foo-doc install it's stuff into
/u/s/d/foo, and link from /u/s/d/foo-doc. I've two problems with this:
1. What do you do in the case that doc-foo documents > 1 package,
possibly none of which are named 'foo' (e.g. tetex-*)?
2. Purely cosmetic: it would bug me slightly to have a /u/s/d/foo when
I haven't installed foo. In particular, I've been briefly disconcerted
when I've installed foo-doc w/o foo and found only a copyright and
changelog file in /u/s/d/foo-doc.
I guess all the possibilities have flaws.
Do these sum up what we've thought of so far?
1. The simplest consistent solution is Nick's: foo-doc installs
everything into /u/s/d/foo-doc, and all related packages include a
README.Docs that directs the user to foo-doc. PRO: simple, works for
multiple related packages. CON: forces user to look in multiple places.
2. foo-doc installs into /u/s/d/foo/docs (or possibly multiple
dirs). PRO: docs are all in one place. CON: doesn't provide solution for
multiple related packages -- where does tetex-doc install stuff?
3. Like 1, except packages manage symlinks from /u/s/d/foo(-whatever) to
files/dirs in /u/s/d/foo-doc. PRO: works for multiple related packages,
docs are in all the places you might look. CON: more stuff in maintainer
scripts.
Of course, the maintainer scripts could be fairly easily automated
with debhelper, esp. if we standardized the somewhat redundant
/u/s/d/foo(-whatever)/docs->../foo-doc link. If we decide to recommend
this, I should probably code up at least template scripts.
Oh, there is this choice:
4. Peter and I are making a mountain out of a molehole, and it's just
not that big a deal.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <stevegr@debian.org>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
Reply to: