Re: tetex-base: /usr/share/doc/texmf/mkhtml{,.nawk}
On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 11:04:25AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
>
> On 30-Apr-2002 Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 05:58:27PM -0700, C.M. Connelly wrote:
> >> JG> I'm not totally sure why we would have to move them: they
> >> JG> are private scripts which affect only files in
> >> JG> /usr/share/doc/texmf and its subdirectories. As long as
> >> JG> the programs which call these scripts are robust if
> >> JG> /usr/share/doc/texmf (or even /usr/share/doc) does not
> >> JG> exist, where is the problem?
> >>
> >> Sean Perry seems to believe there's a Policy violation here:
> >> [...]
> >> I can't find a specific statement in the Policy Manual that says
> >> you cannot have executables in /usr/share/doc, although it does
> >> seem like a sensible thing.
> >
> > Neither can I. And in this particular case, I don't see where the
> > problem is, as long as nothing fails if /usr/share/doc doesn't exist.
> >
>
> <quote>
> Files in /usr/share/doc should not be referenced by any program, and the system
> administrator should be able to delete them without causing any programs to
> break. Any files that are referenced by programs but are also useful as
> standalone documentation should be installed under /usr/share/package/ with
> symbolic links from /usr/share/doc/package/.
> </quote>
>
> This coupled with the FHS definitions of /usr/share and /usr/share/doc.
>
> ANYTHING in /usr/share should be NFS mountable and thus viewable by any machine
> on the network. It should not be used as a storage for programs.
Interesting. Hmmm. What about dhelp, which creates a whole
/usr/share/doc/HTML directory?
Maybe policy should say something like (using RFC language):
Files in /usr/share/doc SHOULD NOT be referenced by any program, and
the system administrator MUST be able to delete them without
causing any programs to break. Any files that are referenced by
programs but are also useful as standalone documentation SHOULD BE
installed under /usr/share/package/ with symbolic links from
/usr/share/doc/package/.
In the case of teTeX, the scripts involved are scripts for handling
the files in the directory itself, and have no other use beyond that.
So moving these scripts to a libdir is fine, but not very useful. The
scripts involved are executable on any architecture, and if the whole
of the /usr/share/doc directory disappears, then they serve no purpose
any longer. Then as long as they are referenced by "if [ -x
/usr/share/doc/tetex/<scriptname> ]; then ...; fi", there shouldn't be
a problem.
Pondering...
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
website: http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jdg/
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see: http://people.debian.org/~jdg/
Visit http://www.thehungersite.com/ to help feed the hungry
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-tetex-maint-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: