Re: fixing up /usr/doc
On 24.12.1998., at 20:12, Randy Edwards wrote:
> In short, I agree. I've found the packages with almost-empty
>/usr/doc/packagename directories mildly annoying. In addition, the sheer
>number of subdirectories under /usr/doc makes it a nightmare to type "ls".
> What about a solution of making a standard /usr/doc/Copyrights and
>/usr/doc/ChangeLogs for copyrights and changelogs and then make it
mandatory
>that all Debian packages place their copyrights and changelogs in a
>subdirectory under each of those? We'd waste some space in overhead by
having
>more sets of subdirs for each package, but at least it'd clean out a lot
of
>stuff under /usr/doc and make it more useable.
Indeed, it does take some time just to list the directory if you
have a lot of packages.
But I find it appropriate that every little package has a directory
with docs, because I don't want to have to guess where is the
documentation for libsth.so.2. I just issue
dpkg -S /usr/lib/libsth.so.2
and go to /usr/doc/[result].
And if that directory doesn't contain nothing but copyright and
changelog(s), I check 'man sth' and 'info sth'. If that doesn't give
me anything, still it is definitely not Debian's fault, but upstream
authors who didn't provide written documentation.
Maintainer can be guilty of that only if he doesn't include in the
package documents that exist in the upstream source.
If a package is only -dev (or -doc) part of the library upstream source,
/usr/doc/package-dev is usually a symbolic link to /usr/doc/package.
I see no point in making a new dir for changelogs. If someone
doesn't like just 2-3 files more in doc directory, he can delete them.
--
enJoy -*/\*- http://jagor.srce.hr/~jrodin/
Reply to: