On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, joost witteveen wrote:
> > > 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.
Seconded.
Fabrizio, could you show us any packages where you consider the existance
of a .tar.gz a bug?
Since I haven't seen any good arguments about why one should or should not
include a .tar.gz below /usr/doc, I think we should leave this up to the
maintainers.
Thanks,
Chris
-- Christian Schwarz
Do you know [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Debian GNU/Linux? [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Visit PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
http://www.debian.org http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/
