Re: Bug#62378: Redundant directory and package name
On Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 04:37:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> joy@cibalia.gkvk.hr (Josip Rodin) wrote on 15.04.00 in <20000415112501.D15450@cibalia.gkvk.hr>:
>
> > On Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 03:14:07AM +0300, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> > > > > The RFC docs currently reside under /usr/doc/doc-rfc. The second
> > > > > doc is redundant, which is also part of the package name. It should
> > > > > be fixed to be using /usr/share/doc/rfc
> > > >
> > > > Are you familiar with debian policy? I doubt it, since debian policy
> > > > requires a package install docs in
> > > > /usr/share/doc/<literal-unmangled-package-name>
> > >
> > > No, I'm not that familiar with the debian policy. Though I'm quite
> > > familiar with common sense for about 20 years; I would then suggest that
> > > the package name is redundant. If it is in the doc section, it doesn't
> > > have to be named doc-rfc, it should simply be named rfc and then it would
> > > reside under /usr/share/doc/rfc and become perfectly compliant with the
> > > debian policy.
> >
> > No, the directory containing copyright and changelog* files must be called
> > /usr/share/doc/doc-rfc if the package is called doc-rfc, that is our policy.
> >
> > However, actual RFCs can be moved elsewhere, for example, like the HOWTOs
> > and the FAQs, in /usr/share/doc/RFC/?
>
> 1. I see no reason to rename the package. Doc-only packages are usually
> named X-doc[-format] if they are for X, and doc-X when they're
> standalone. doc-rfc is no exception here.
>
> 2. Moving te actual RFCs is certainly an option. What does this group
> think?
/usr/share/rfc/
Makes more sense to me. I don't see a problem with the package name.
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bcollins@linux.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: