On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 11:27:29AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> 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:
Actually, that's not what I was getting at. I was thinking something
more like:
foo:
/usr/share/doc/foo/
copyright
changelog.gz
README.Debian "Docs are in foo-doc"
bar:
/usr/share/doc/bar/
copyright
changelog.gz
README.Debian "Docs are in foo-doc"
foo-doc:
/usr/share/doc/foo/
html -> ../foo-doc/foo-html
/usr/share/doc/bar/
html -> ../foo-doc/bar-html
/usr/share/doc/foo-doc/
copyright
changelog.gz
foo-html/
index.html
...
bar-html/
index.html
...
All this is done in the .deb, no maintainer script hacks needed.
> 1. What do you do in the case that doc-foo documents > 1 package,
> possibly none of which are named 'foo' (e.g. tetex-*)?
Seems fine.
> 2. Purely cosmetic: it would bug me slightly to have a /u/s/d/foo when
> I haven't installed foo.
You'd have /u/s/d/foo, but you wouldn't have /u/s/d/foo/copyright; and in
fact everything in /u/s/d/foo would be a symlink. I don't see this being
much of a problem.
> 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.
This wouldn't be an issue.
We probably ought to work out what docs actually ought to be split into
separate packages. Man pages should probably never be split out. .txt.gz
docs maybe don't need to be, generally. If the docs are available in
multiple formats, maybe it'd be sensible to split all but one format out?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
-- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
Attachment:
pgpSTyH2vVj_v.pgp
Description: PGP signature