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