Your message dated 01 Nov 1998 01:27:20 -600
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line [Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
debian-policy_2.5.0.0_i386.changes INSTALLED
has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I'm
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Ian Jackson
(administrator, Debian bugs database)
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 7 Mar 1997 09:20:47 +0000
Received: (qmail 10202 invoked from network); 7 Mar 1997 09:20:47 -0000
Received: from guadiana.unex.es ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
by master.debian.org with SMTP; 7 Mar 1997 09:20:18 -0000
Received: from cantor ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
by guadiana.unex.es (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA04838
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 10:11:35 +0100
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 10:10:00 +0100 (MET)
From: Santiago Vila Doncel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Debian Bugs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Policy manual contradicts itself about including docs or not.
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.4.0.8
The following paragraphs are somewhat contradictory:
1) If a package comes with large amounts of documentation which many
users of the package will not require you should create a separate
binary package to contain it, so that it does not take up disk space
on the machines of users who do not need or want it installed.
2) If your package comes with extensive documentation in a markup format
that can be converted to various other formats you should if possible
ship HTML versions in the binary package, in the directory
/usr/doc/package or its subdirectories.
What if both 1) and 2) are true? i.e. What if a package comes with large
amounts of documentation "which many users of the package will not
require" but it is in texinfo format ("that can be converted easily to
HTML")? This applies to most GNU programs.
I think policy should be clear about this, and state which is more
important, either 1) or 2)
[ In my opinion, it would be better to ship it in a different package,
this way user is free to install or not install the documentation. The
important thing here, I think, is that HTML docs should be "available",
which is not exactly the same as "included in the binary package". ]
BTW: My apologies to Manoj Srivastava and Ramos Gon=E7alves. I read 1) but =
I
didn't remember 2). This bug against policy should have been the first.
