Re: Bug#62378: Redundant directory and package name
On 21-Aug-00, 15:56 (CDT), Nicol?s Lichtmaier <nick@debian.org> wrote:
> > I expect that when I install a package named doc-xxxx, all if its
> > content is going to be in /usr/share/doc/doc-xxxx. The Debian standard,
> > whether spelled out in policy or not, supports such expectation.
>
> That's a half true. Many packages install files in the doc directory of the
> package being documented. /usr/share/doc/doc-rfc/ should only have a
> changelog and a README.
1. I subtly avoided those by specifying doc-xxxx rather than xxxx-doc :-)
FWIW, I think we ought to come to agreement about the proper behaviour:
right now I don't know *where* to look after installing foo-doc.
2. There is no "rfc" package for "rfc-doc" to install with.
(Yes, both of the above points are rather facetious...)
> Besides, it would be nice to have many rfc packages: doc-rfc-mail,
> doc-rfc-web, all of them puting packages in /usr/share/doc/rfc. And
> there could be symlinkf pointing to the most recent versions of
> standards: /usr/share/doc/rfc/HTTP would point to rfc2616.txt.
This is a good argument. I think combined with Colin's idea that it be
called /usr/share/doc/RFC (embracing and extending the HOWTO example) I
could be in favor of it, as it avoids the package namespace.
Steve
Reply to: