Re: policy summary

[Chris Waters <xtifr@dsp.net>]

Seth R Arnold <sarnold@willamette.edu> writes:

> undocumented.7 points people to /usr/doc/foo and /usr/lib/foo -- but not
> /usr/share/doc/foo

At the moment, it shouldn't need to -- while it's true that we're
migrating to /usr/share/doc, it is still a bug to not have a link in
/usr/doc.  And it's *not* a bug to only use /usr/doc yet.  So,
/usr/doc is still the canonical location from the user's POV.

> nor does it mention that foo might be in a package not
> named `foo'

That's true, but I'm not sure that's necessarily helpful info.  "The
documentation might be in some other directory under /usr/doc, so just
hunt around at random, ok?"  :-)

And unfortunately, "dpkg --search $(which foo)" doesn't always work,
because frequently foo is in /usr/X11R6/bin, and "which foo" will
return "/usr/bin/X11/foo", which won't match in the search.  This
makes it noticably more difficult to describe how to find which
package 'foo' came from.

*shrug*

I think there's room for improvement, but I think we'd be better off
finding ways to eliminate undocumented(7) than trying to patch it up.
-- 
Chris Waters   xtifr@dsp.net | I have a truly elegant proof of the
      or    xtifr@debian.org | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr     | this .signature file.