Re: Which directory to use for packagename-doc documentation files?

[Steve Greenland <steveg@moregruel.net>]

On 25-Jul-01, 15:12 (CDT), Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca> wrote: 
> 
> Steve Greenland wrote:
> 
> > Should the foo-doc package try to create/remove the
> > /usr/doc/foo->/usr/share/doc/foo link (since it contains the /u/s/d/foo
> > directory)? I think not...
> 
> If it doesn't, then /usr/doc/foo/document-file won't exists, so
> it seems it should?

Maybe. /u/s/d/foo will exist, and /u/d/foo-doc->/u/s/d/foo-doc will
exist.  The only time /u/d/foo->/u/s/d/foo won't is when foo-doc is
installed and foo isn't. The reason I think you don't want to do is
that the foo package postinst/prerm *will* add/remove the link, and
modifying them to deal with the optional case of foo-doc being installed
is painful, esp since many packages automate that via debhelper. 

The reason that I think the lack of the link is okay is that foo *isn't*
installed, and If I installed foo-doc as a separate case, I'll almost
certainly go hunting in /u/d/foo-doc. Especially since I know from
Debian Policy that the docs will be there :-),


> On the other hand, these packages install in `foo' rather than in
> `foo-doc' and none of their postinst files do it: 

Probably because it's hard to manage, and debhelper (quite rightfully)
doesn't deal with packages munging other packages links.

Hopefully, the whole /usr/doc link farm will go away in the next release
anyway, and our (soon to be proposed?) policy correction won't go into
affect until then anyway.

Steve

-- 
steveg@moregruel.net