Re: Bug#62378: Redundant directory and package name
> Nicolás, my one concern: lets assume a user installs both mutt and
> mutt-doc, and mutt-doc installs its docs into /usr/share/doc/mutt.
>
> User says to userself, "why is my /usr/share/doc so big?" A `du' later,
> and the mutt docs are the culprit. User thinks to userself, "bummer, I
> like mutt, but the only way to get rid of the documentation is to
> uninstall the whole package. I guess I should delete the docs manually."
Unimportant.. users can't assume lots of wrong things... Besides, `rm'ing
files without uninstalling packages should be considered an "advanced" thing
(I tend to consider it as a *wrong* thing anyway).
> *maybe* the whole concept is contrived; but two packages installing
> files into /usr/share/doc/<one_package_name> seems to be begging for
> trouble, somewhere.
Storms? Mad dogs attacks? Time-space disruptions?
> If, however, we support something like a Documentation: tag in the
> control files, or say that all the mutt-doc style packages should
> install their stuff into /usr/share/doc/mutt/doc -- then I could see how
> this could be good. I too don't like `ls -ld *mutt*' in the doc
> directory, just to see what might be appropriate, so I would like to see
> a nice solution to this thing... :)
It's an imperfect world, we should choose an option that, without being
perfect, offers more benefits than the others...
> In any event, this is not a formal objection to anything. :)
That's something.. =)
Reply to: