Re: docs, docs, and more docs(names of packages and location of files)

[Josip Rodin <joy@gkvk.hr>]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 07:54:58PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> In doing this, I found several packages that had large quantities of
> documentation in a non-doc type package.  This meant that all installs of
> said package had that documentation around.

How large? It can be filed as a bug on the basis of common sense if it's a
large percentage or just large in KB/MB.

> Additionally, we are all aware(I hope) about the naming inconsistencies. 
> Some call it -doc, some call it -docs.

I think we should proclaim -doc as proper, it's shorter and more popular.

% grep-available -F Package -r '\-doc$' -s Package --count
441
% grep-available -F Package -r '\-docs$' -s Package --count
14

> 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/.

I think they should place the docs in foo/ and only leave the necessary
stuff (changelogs, copyright) in foo-doc/, and a symlink to ../foo for
convenience.

Or whatever is consensus. Some consistency would be useful, in any case.

> Also, there is the problem that some docs depend on their foo.deb, others
> don't.

Since it's reasonable to expect that some people will just want to install a
-doc package to read the docs e.g. on a machine where their PDF viewer works
better or works at all, the dependency should be a Recommends or Suggests.
I think bugs can be filed on the basis of common sense in this case even if
the policy doesn't specifically mention it (not sure if it does, didn't
check).

-- 
     2. That which causes joy or happiness.