[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Multi-binary packages and documentation directories

'Guy Maor wrote:'
>Tom Lees <tom@lpsg.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> What exactly is the correct place for multi-binary packages to place their
>> documentation
>For the specific case of shared libs, I've been making only one
>directory, libreadline2 for example, and putting documentation for
>both libreadline2 and libreadline2-dev in it.  There is only one
>copyright and changelog file, installed by libreadline2.
>For related packages which are not shared libraries, I think a symlink
>in /usr/doc is appropriate.

It seems elegant to me to have /usr/doc/<source-pkg-name> instead of
<pkg-name>.  Since the whole point of a multi-binary package is that
it comes from the same source.  I think the exception would be the
source package that wants multiple directories under /usr/doc.  Can
the Policy manual section 5.3 be revised to indicate this?

Unless someone sees a flaw with this, I'll change my multi-binary
package to behave in this way.

Christopher J. Fearnley            |    Linux/Internet Consulting
cjf@netaxs.com, cjf@onit.net       |    UNIX SIG Leader at PACS
http://www.netaxs.com/~cjf         |    (Philadelphia Area Computer Society)
ftp://ftp.netaxs.com/people/cjf    |    Design Science Revolutionary
"Dare to be Naive" -- Bucky Fuller |    Explorer in Universe

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com

Reply to: