Re: Bug#62378: Redundant directory and package name
> > > 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.
>
> That makes sense, except that my usual sequence is this:
>
> 1. Look for docs in /usr/doc/foo -- nothing there.
> 2. apt-get install foo-doc -- success.
> 3. Since I just installed foo-doc, I tend to look in /usr/doc/foo-doc for
> the new materials. Silly me.
>
> There doesn't seem to be policy on this...maybe there should be.
>
> One argument for putting it in .../foo-doc is that if I want the docs
> without foo, perhaps to see if I want to install it, or if I need/want
> the docs on a different machine than I need/want the package (think
> firewalls...)
Think this: Do the docs document the docs? /usr/share/doc/mutt documents
mutt, but /usr/share/doc/mutt-doc... documents... what? mutt-doc? Is a
nonsensical place for documentation, I think. It only has some sense from a
package management perspective, but that's not ok, package manage should be
invisible to the end users, and things shoould fall in the most intuitive
place... I M H O. =)
Reply to: