Re: Multi-binary packages and documentation directories
'Guy Maor wrote:'
>Tom Lees <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> What exactly is the correct place for multi-binary packages to place their
>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
email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org | 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