Re: RFC: A default html file
David H. Silber writes ("Re: RFC: A default html file"):
> > Thanks for the comments on doc, guys. I think I will package the old 'doc' as
> > `doclinux' and create a new `docdebian' with Debian specific documentation,
> > especially as Ian M. promised the manual for today :-)
> > (As an aside: doclinux and docdebian or rather doc-linux and doc-debian ?)
> doclinux & docdebian seem better. Dashes in the name make it harder to type
> and harder to parse out the version portions. (I think that there are other
> packages already that have dashes in their names, but we don't need to add to
> the problem.)
Why can't we just stick with `doc' containing both sets of
documentation ? Is there any point in splitting the package up ?
There is IMO nothing wrong with dashes in the filenames.
> > Erick pointed out to me that this could be a good place for a defaults html
> > file, say debian.html or homepage.html that all the related programs (ie
> > lynx, chimera, w3-el, cern-httpd and more to come as apache etc) could use as
> > the default home page with url file://localhost/etc/debian.html.
> This (/etc) seems a rather bad place for documentation. Perhaps
> /usr/doc/debian/debian.html would be better. A configuration file to specify
> this or some other file could go in /etc/httpd or /etc/html or some-such.
If we put a simple default file containing mainly links in
/etc/debian.html then the user can edit it without having it
overwritten, and can change what their browsers see without
reconfiguring them all.
A better solution would be to make it possible to reconfigure all
browsers' home pages at once.