Re: The /usr/doc Hierarchie
Karl Eichwalder writes ("The /usr/doc Hierarchie"):
> Delete *.tex.gz from the lilo subdir (I think it's a good idea to have a
> DVI instead of the TeX files -- the Guidelines from dpkg-93.70 should be
> more specific concerning the allowed file formats (I vote for ASCII and
> DVI only).
In general, documentation source should be in the source package. The
/usr/doc directory can contain PostScript, DVI, ASCII, ASCII with
overprint highlighting, &c.
I don't think TeX source is appropriate; it is definitely
inappropriate if no formatted version is provided.
I'm not convinced that just providing DVI should be allowed, but then
(a) I'm a TeX-hater and (b) providing ASCII or some other sensible
format would probably be difficult.
> Beside ./copyright, ./examples and ./debian-$(version) I would like to
> see there the same directory structure as in the source resp. the
> deb-file distribution:
>
> /usr/doc/base
> /usr/doc/admin
> /usr/doc/mail
I disagree, strongly. It is important to be able to find things in
/usr/doc, even if one is a naive user. Having to use (for example)
`find' is unacceptable.
One should not need to know how a package was installed when looking
up its documentation - remember that the user is not always the
sysadmin.
Ian.
Reply to: