On 05/05/2008, Thibaut Paumard wrote: > Actually I was sort of guessing the only package allowed to put > anything under /usr/share/doc/<package>/ was <package> itself. It's > probably the core of the original post. Is this assumption incorrect? AFAICT, yes. Particularly when the binaries come from the very same source, so that the maintainer is kind of aware of the possible implications of moving this or that bit of doc from a package to another (e.g. can handle moving a manpage/HTML manual or two from/to the $foo package -- say it's considered core documentation -- to/from the $foo-doc package, possibly setting Replaces: where needed, etc.). > I have no precise excerpt from policy to back it up. :) > Note that /usr/share/doc/<package>-doc/ will be created anyway. If it contains the usual Debian changelog and copyright file, there's no reason to have a look there in the first place. If one installs $foo-doc, isn't it a bit logical to check for its documentation in /u/s/d/$foo? > If the actual doc is installed under /usr/share/doc/<package>/, then > /usr/share/doc/<package>-doc/ should definitely point to it somehow, > via symlink(s) or README.Debian. Beware of symlinking. That means a strict dependency (because of the copyright file). And one probably doesn't want to update a possibly several dozens MB large -doc package when moving from 1.2.3 to 1.2.4, which is say a bugfix release only. Not to mention what happens when the package gets binNMU'd. Want to update a -doc package for that? Oh, and the funny part: how do you declare a strict Depends: on an Arch: any package from an Arch: all package? Mraw, KiBi.
Attachment:
pgpfzOkrTsOXR.pgp
Description: PGP signature