On Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 04:37:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josip Rodin) wrote on 15.04.00 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 03:14:07AM +0300, Eray Ozkural wrote: > > > > > The RFC docs currently reside under /usr/doc/doc-rfc. The second > > > > > doc is redundant, which is also part of the package name. It should > > > > > be fixed to be using /usr/share/doc/rfc > > > > > > > > Are you familiar with debian policy? I doubt it, since debian policy > > > > requires a package install docs in > > > > /usr/share/doc/<literal-unmangled-package-name> > > > > > > No, I'm not that familiar with the debian policy. Though I'm quite > > > familiar with common sense for about 20 years; I would then suggest that > > > the package name is redundant. If it is in the doc section, it doesn't > > > have to be named doc-rfc, it should simply be named rfc and then it would > > > reside under /usr/share/doc/rfc and become perfectly compliant with the > > > debian policy. > > > > No, the directory containing copyright and changelog* files must be called > > /usr/share/doc/doc-rfc if the package is called doc-rfc, that is our policy. > > > > However, actual RFCs can be moved elsewhere, for example, like the HOWTOs > > and the FAQs, in /usr/share/doc/RFC/? > > 1. I see no reason to rename the package. Doc-only packages are usually > named X-doc[-format] if they are for X, and doc-X when they're > standalone. doc-rfc is no exception here. > > 2. Moving te actual RFCs is certainly an option. What does this group > think?
/usr/share/rfc/ Makes more sense to me. I don't see a problem with the package name. -- -----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------ / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
