Re^4: document registration policy needing to be written
Am 14.04.98 schrieb apharris # burrito.onshore.com ...
APH> > * no problems with file names
APH> Well you have a point there, possible conflict of namespace in the
APH> /usr/share/... area. If the files had to be the package name, then
APH> that would take care of that issue ;).
APH> > * it#s easier to support /usr/local/doc, relative links
APH> We are compelled by policy not to create files under /usr/local, which
That#s right, but the user can create them! And maybe he installs and old
version of a package under /usr/local. I don#t like absolute paths.
APH> > * you can move a whole diretory (include documents and our file)
APH> > without changing "our file".
APH> Things would defineatly break (i.e., the database in /var would now be
APH> out of sync, i.e., look in the wrong place).
I#m talking about the package maintainer and not the user! And it will
break nothing, because postinst/prerm would be created by tools like
debstd or debhelper.
APH> > * you could include the file very easy in a tar archive
APH> What tar file? What's the point of shlepping around .dhelp or
APH> .docbase or whatever files anyhow if they're not going to be
APH> registered and noticed properly (i.e., no preinst).
dhelp would notice them, if you rebuild the whole database as done during
APH> install -d debian/tmp/usr/share/doc-base
APH> in your rules file and all reasons boil down to that. Which I can
APH> sympathize with, although it doesn't convince me.
Where#s the advantage of an absolute path like /usr/share?
Uni: Budde@tu-harburg.de Fido: 2:240/5202.15
Mailbox: email@example.com http://www.tu-harburg.de/~semb2204/
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com