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

Re: Multi-binary packages and documentation directories

'Dale Scheetz wrote:'
>On Wed, 1 Jan 1997, Chris Fearnley wrote:
>> '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

Guy and Dale bring up excellent points against my previous proposal.
So how about this variation on the theme:  the copyright and changelogs
go in /usr/doc/<source-pkg>.  /usr/doc/<binary-pkg> exists and is
either a symbolic link to /usr/doc/<source-pkg> or (in the case that
the documentation should be strictly separated between the several
packages), simply the copyright and changelogs are symlinks to
/usr/doc/<source-pkg> and the rest of the files may or may not be
symlinks as the situation warrants.

At least if this advice were in the policy manual, it would help new
developers decide how to proceed.  I think it should be stated that
some packages may warrant exceptional treatment and the above is
advisory as opposed to manditory?  The manditory parts would be:
copyright and at least one changelog under /usr/doc/<pkg>.

Or does anyone have anything better?

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: