On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 01:03:03AM -0700, Osamu Aoki wrote: > > should point there (as a symlink). Since we do need to have (per policy) > > the <packagename>-<LANG> directory if we are going to make packages per > > language. > > I knew something like this was discussed and I implemented it. Then > people complained. joey's comment was convincing and that was newer > than your argument. If might be convincing and newer but it was not talking about the filesystem structure (which I did in a previous post) only about /doc/manuals in the DDP web area. Please re-read the thread (I did so *before* you spammed me with it *again*). > > Note: having /usr/share/doc/Debian/<packagename>/<LANG>/ also > > helps if we want to help people use locale-purge for documentation too. > > There are pros and cons for this. Having all the language in one > directory is more compatible with apache server for HTML. But user's are not necessarily going to have an apache server to read their own documentation! They are going to use something akin to gnome-help, browse the files, try to read them with links/lynx or whatever. We cannot suggest users to install an Apache webserver to browse the documentation or otherwise get lost. Period. User's filesystems need to be properly defined so that: 1.- they can easily find the stuff with a proper file-browser 2.- they can easily configure the system to *remove* the stuff they want (ala localepurge) Gnome's manuals, KDE manuals, Manual pages, Info pages, localisation... all are properly structured /usr/<whatever>/lang! Why are we going to change this. Publishing in the web server is radically different from "publishing" through a debian package. OTOH the /usr/share/doc/<package>/<lang> has been the default way to do so in Debian for quite a long time (take doc-html for example, take doc-debian for example). Please don't change this with a *good* reason (and content negotiation is not if you are talking about user's systems). > > BTW, FREEBSD does like /usr/share/doc/en_US.?????/.... There are few > ways to do it. All have pros and cons. I think it is most important to > be consistent. This is the only point people differ significantly and I > think you need to convince others (joey, rob). As you pointed out in > private mail /usr/share/doc/ and WWW are separate issue. But > consistency between them are nice. I like argument by joey and reverted > my build to joey's style proposal. (Maybe, you start new thread focusing > on this issue on both d-doc and d-www). > WWW Builds are different from package builds. I'm starting to get tired discussing this and waiting my time (and fingers). I do not need to convince joey or rob, they never discussed this AFAIK. > For me, my current one is incremental update to current policy while > yours are total change which you need to convince others. No its not. See doc-html, see doc-debian, see this: $ pwd /usr/share/doc $ find . -name "es" -type d ./HOWTO/es ./gnome-help-data/html/desk-guide_applet/es ./gnome-help-data/html/help-browser/es ./gnome-help-data/html/mailcheck_applet/es ./gnome-help-data/html/printer_applet/es ./gnome-help-data/html/tasklist_applet/es ./gnome-panel-data/html/panel/es ./gnome-terminal/html/gnome-terminal/es ./kde/HTML/es $ ls ./gnome-help-data/html/desk-guide_applet/ C/ de/ es/ it/ This is the acceptable way to do it, all package maintainers are doing it (and some software depends on this already). We should *not* change it. > > So update as I proposed and keep discussing your concern. (Acceptable?) > Yes. Consider this a sub-thread to discuss this (again). I will discuss other issues in different sub-threads... Javi
Attachment:
pgpWiQETb_hkt.pgp
Description: PGP signature