Re: Policy for /usr/doc/<pkg-name>-doc
On Fri, Nov 06, 1998 at 02:07:18PM -0500, Avery Pennarun wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 06, 1998 at 07:58:25PM +0000, David Rocher wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 06, 1998 at 11:33:39AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > As a user I prefer that /usr/doc/<pkgname>-doc be a link to
> > > /usr/doc/<pkgname>, then the extra docs fall under somthing like this
> >
> > the problem with that approch is you need to install <pkgname> before
> > <pkgname>-doc. <pkgname>-doc should depends on <pkgname> to avoid
> > a broken symlink. So you can't only install <pkgname>-doc to read
> > the documentation without <pkgname>. Sometimes it's nice to have
> > only the documentation.
>
> Since the -doc package installs stuff into /usr/doc/<pkgname>, the symlink
> won't be broken.
>
> But more importantly, why does the -doc package even need its own directory
> in /usr/doc? I know, policy says something about it, but that can always be
> changed. As it is, I always have to look in _both_ the <pkg> and <pkg>-doc
> directories to find the documentation anyway. Why not centralize it in
> /usr/doc/<pkg>?
I agree. I know policy requires *every* package to have /usr/doc/<pkgname>
but why can't -doc packages be an exception and put the docs in
/usr/doc/<pkgname> and not in /usr/doc/<pkgname>-doc?
--
--********************** ____************************************
* Federico Di Gregorio | / *-=$< ;-) TeX Wizard? *
* Debian developer! | / -1 pgp: finger fog@perosa.alpcom.it *
* <friend of penguins> |/ try http://www.debian.org *
******************DE 9E B2 75 B4 F6 CC 5B C3 D5 71 51 04 AB F3 B2**
Reply to: