Re: Removing non-free documentation from a package
Oh, we have conflicting views here:
* Frank Lichtenheld <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2005-09-15 14:07]:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 01:15:59PM +0200, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> > 2) How should the nonfree package be called? The options would be:
> > libparse-recdescent-perl-nonfree
> > libparse-recdescent-perl-doc
> I would go for that one. No need to append nonfree to every package
> name in non-free ;)
* Sven Mueller <email@example.com> [2005-09-15 14:14]:
> Since the original package is libparse-recdescent-perl, I would name the
> non-free package libparse-recdescent-tutorial (if it really only
> includes a tutorial) or libparse-recdescent-doc-nonfree (if it is more
> than just the tutorial). In the latter case, I appended -nonfree to not
> block the -doc package name once free documentation becomes available.
I buy Sven's arguments in favor of adding -nonfree. I would also strip the
"lib" at the beginning of the name. The upstream Perl module is called
Parse-RecDescent, so I would call the package parse-recdescent-doc-nonfree.
What do you think?