> > And yes, I realise you were talking about real documentation in
> > /usr/doc/*/*.tar.gz. Now, that's something different, and maybe
> > the maintainers should think again about those tarfiles. But
> > on the bases of those "doc.tar.gz" files you wanted policy to be
> > changed to the effect of not allowing .tar.gz in /usr/doc. That I
> > think is wrong.
>
> yes, I'm talking about documentation in tar.gz.
> On the bases of those "doc.tar.gz" files I want policy to be changed to
> the effect of not allowing documentation files in .tar.gz
> ---------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> does this sound better?
It sounds like something I would oppose less strongly too:).
I still prefer to leave a possibility of including .tar.gz's,
if the maintainer feels that's better, but I don't have real
good arguments to say we absolutely must allow .tar.gz documentation
files. It's just I don't think there are no really good arguments
why there absolutely must not be .tar.gz documentation files,
and I prefer to leave room for the maintainers.
Personally, I'd say: talk to the maintainers of the packages
that have "real doc .tar.gz" files, and ask why they did it.
I presume that most of the times, they do it because the upstream
source does it, and they probably wouldn't mind untarring them.
> Note that I would like to have "example" files (not only docs, but also
> code example and config examples) referenced inside html docs as links
> to the file, not to the tarball.
Sure.
--
joost witteveen, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
#!/usr/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)
#what's this? see http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/
