Re: docs, docs, and more docs(names of packages and location of files)
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 07:54:58PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> Additionally, we are all aware(I hope) about the naming
> inconsistencies. Some call it -doc, some call it -docs. Then, some
> place the documentation in -doc/, while others place it in foo/. Still
> others place it in -doc/, and then have a symlink from foo/.
>
> All this leads to end-user confusion. What do I install to read about?
> foo After I have *that* installed, where do I go to read about it?
> /usr/share/doc/, but then where ?
>
> Also, there is the problem that some docs depend on their foo.deb,
> others don't.
Packages should only Suggest their -doc counterparts, not Depend on it.
Moreover, I think the general criterium adopted until now is to add a -doc pkg
when documentation is very extended and/or in non-man and non-txt format
(i.e. html/ps/pdf). Also, when documentation is distributed as
a separate tarball by the upstream, and/or released asynchronously in
respect with the source tarball, it's generally a good idea to
release it as a separate package as well.
Surely such kind of criteria can be easily added to policy as a suggested
Nothing can be stated for documentation-only packages.
About names: if we have /usr/share/doc and not /usr/share/docs,
we should have -doc packages only for coherence.
We have a pletora of -docs pkg, instead.
More ideas?
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
Reply to: