Re: Bug#106073: recommend to install <package> documentation into /usr/share/doc/<package>/
Russ Allbery <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Thank you for writing this up!
It's my pleasure.
> I'm inclined to second this, although I wonder if should is too strong
> at this point and we should instead allow for either method but
> document that using the same directory as the "parent" package is
> preferred. That would avoid the instantly buggy issue but still set up
> a transition over time.
Can you show me an example (perhaps elsewhere in Policy) that shows the
less-strong wording you have in mind?
> We'll need a Lintian tag, etc., to actually get everything moved over.
Should that be a separate bug report?
> I also agree with Bill that it might be useful to say that one should
> have a symlink or symlinks in the /usr/share/doc/package-doc directory
> pointing to the docs in the other directory (or vice versa; it doesn't
> really matter which direction the linking goes). That would also make
> the transition easier.
This might need more discussion; I didn't see a good consensus on that
part. More bug reports, or am I getting overly picky?
> > + The documentation must be installed as specified in
> > + <ref id="docs-additional">.
> I think that last "must" should be a "should".
Why so? It's merely saying that another section of Policy must be
followed. If that section includes less-strong language, the “must” here
is exactly as restrictive or non-restrictive as that other section's
\ “Teach a man to make fire, and he will be warm for a day. Set a |
`\ man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.” |
_o__) —John A. Hrastar |