Re: PLEASE: standard package README file/orientation
> From: Steve Greenland <stevegr@debian.org>
>
> On 22-Aug-00, 23:12 (CDT), Daniel Barclay <dsb@smart.net> wrote:
> > ...
>
> ... Current policy
> requires that /usr/doc/<package> exist (possibly as a symlink to
> /usr/share/doc/<package>).
Then why don't more package implement that policy?
> > Some others do but their files are so scrambled that you can't
> > tell which are current, which are obsolete (because of, e.g.,
> > Debian clean-up of how the package works), etc., without
> > reading each file.
>
> It is not the maintainer's job to keep a packages upstream documentation
> up-to-date. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
So? I didn't say it was. I didn't say that Debian maintainers
should clean up upstream documentation.
I just argued that in doc directory, which typically contains
a mess of upstream files, there should be a file that is
easily recognizable (having a standard name) as the Debian
README file.
> > Debian packages don't provide that orientation reliably at all.
>
> ls -l /usr/doc/foo
> dpkg -L foo |grep bin
> dpkg -L foo |grep man
> dpkg -L foo |grep info
>
> works for *every* package. (Yes, I know it would be more efficient
> to combine into one dpkg -L command, I left it as an exercise for the
> reader.)
If Debian really thinks that is sufficient, then this is hopeless.
Daniel
--
Daniel Barclay
dsb@smart.net
(Hmm. A little worrisome: http://www.junkbusters.com/cgi-bin/privacy
http://www.anonymizer.com/snoop.cgi )
Reply to: