Hello, On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 07:54:58PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote: > call it -doc, some call it -docs. Then, some place the documentation in > -doc/, while others place it in foo/. Still others place it in -doc/, and > then have a symlink from foo/. This came up several times, but I never saw opponents to either place for the documentation. Here is a case were any decision may be better than none. So maybe we should just make a "random" decision about this, and place this as a recommendation at a visible place. Let's say we recommend * If documentation makes up a significant amount of the package size of a package names foo, that it should be split out into a package named foo-doc. Rationale: foo-doc is more common than foo-docs. And the term "significant amount" gives the package maintainer room to apply common sense. * The foo-doc package should place the documentation into /usr/share/foo or into subdirectories of this. Rationale: Placing the documentation in /usr/share/foo makes the location consistent between packages with and without doc packages. * The foo package should suggest the foo-doc package. In general the foo-doc package should have no dependency on the foo package. Rationale: The foo package "may be more useful with" the foo-doc package; this is the definition of a Suggests. And the suggest is useful for the sysadmin to know that there is a foo-doc package. The foo-doc package on the other hand makes sense even in absence of the foo package. And the system administrator will have no difficulties to figure out the existence of the foo package. How does this sound? Where could we place such a recommendation? I think if there is a recommendation, then many package maintainers could be convinced to change there packages for the sake of consistency. Jochen -- Omm (0)-(0) http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/~wwwstoch/voss/index.html
Attachment:
pgp1Jhye5Qwsr.pgp
Description: PGP signature