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

Re: Feaping Creature-ism in core Debian Packages

On 13-Sep-99, 09:19 (CDT), Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca> wrote: 
> Steve Greenland wrote:
> > 
> > IMO, anything like that that package actually needs to run should be in
> > /usr/lib or /usr/share/lib.
> What would you do with documentation packages that want to be
> accessible to dwww and as http://localhost/doc/PACKAGE ?
> Packages like mh-book, tdlug, etc.
> I would say `a package shouldn't rely on its docs being present',
> but rather `executables shouldn't rely on docs being present'.

I see your point, but I'm not sure that "executables" is the right
word. Obviously, a pure doc packages needs to put its contents under
/usr/share/doc (or info or man, as appropriate). And things designed to
look into /usr/share/doc, like dwww and the webservers don't "fail" if a
given piece of doc isn't there.

OTOH, a program that needs a template to produce its output, or an icon
or any other sort of similar resource, should not store those items under

It may be one of those "I know it when I see it" sort of things.
Maybe the best we can do is give a few examples, and have people
classify there stuff against those. I'd like to believe that that
people wouldn't argue over it ("Hey, those icons really should be in
/usr/share/icons/foobar, not /usr/share/doc/foobar." "Oh yeah, you're


Steve Greenland <vmole@swbell.net>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)

Reply to: