Re: policy summary
On Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 03:23:00PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Kristoffer.Rose@ens-lyon.fr wrote:
> > As I remember it from Ol Times (at the time I was one of the mandators that
> > debian should include manual *sources* instead of catmans :) the purpose of
> > undocumented(7) was to signal that a package had no documentation *at all*.
>
> undocumented.7 has for years pointed people to /usr/doc, and other sources
> of documentation, so that doesn't seem right.
undocumented.7 points people to /usr/doc/foo and /usr/lib/foo -- but not
/usr/share/doc/foo -- nor does it mention that foo might be in a package not
named `foo' -- would it be wise to update undocumented.7 before potato
ships, so that it not only includes a suggestion to /usr/share/doc/foo, but
mentions a quick way using dpkg to find out what package foo *is* a part of?
I suppose those, the "see also" section lists a few other programs that
could come in handy. In any event, it should probably point to
/usr/share/doc/foo as well.
I am thinking of filing a bug report again manpages -- unless someone has a
better idea. :)
--
Seth Arnold | http://www.willamette.edu/~sarnold/
Hate spam? See http://maps.vix.com/rbl/ for help
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into
your ~/.signature to help me spread!
Reply to: