On Fri, Nov 06, 1998 at 02:07:18PM -0500, Avery Pennarun wrote: > On Fri, Nov 06, 1998 at 07:58:25PM +0000, David Rocher wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 06, 1998 at 11:33:39AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > > > As a user I prefer that /usr/doc/<pkgname>-doc be a link to > > > /usr/doc/<pkgname>, then the extra docs fall under somthing like this > > > > the problem with that approch is you need to install <pkgname> before > > <pkgname>-doc. <pkgname>-doc should depends on <pkgname> to avoid > > a broken symlink. So you can't only install <pkgname>-doc to read > > the documentation without <pkgname>. Sometimes it's nice to have > > only the documentation. > > Since the -doc package installs stuff into /usr/doc/<pkgname>, the symlink > won't be broken. > > But more importantly, why does the -doc package even need its own directory > in /usr/doc? I know, policy says something about it, but that can always be > changed. As it is, I always have to look in _both_ the <pkg> and <pkg>-doc > directories to find the documentation anyway. Why not centralize it in > /usr/doc/<pkg>?
I agree. I know policy requires *every* package to have /usr/doc/<pkgname> but why can't -doc packages be an exception and put the docs in /usr/doc/<pkgname> and not in /usr/doc/<pkgname>-doc? -- --********************** ____************************************ * Federico Di Gregorio | / *-=$< ;-) TeX Wizard? * * Debian developer! | / -1 pgp: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * <friend of penguins> |/ try http://www.debian.org * ******************DE 9E B2 75 B4 F6 CC 5B C3 D5 71 51 04 AB F3 B2**
