Re: Bug#62378: Redundant directory and package name
> > 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.
Here the solution is clear to me. A package mutt-doc documenting mutt
should put its files under /usr/doc/mutt, i.e. where a user will go to find
mutt documentation.
> 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.
Sounds good, I would agree with this Let's save the game here (doom
metaphor). Now: What about other kind of specs? Would it be useful to have
a /usr/share/doc/specs/RFC? together with a /usr/share/doc/specs/w3 and
such? (do we load the saved game? =) )
Reply to: