=?iso-8859-1?Q?Nicol=E1s_Lichtmaier?= wrote: > > > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 03:14:07AM +0300, Eray Ozkural wrote: > > /usr/share/rfc/ > > > > Makes more sense to me. I don't see a problem with the package name. > > /usr/share/doc/rfc is much better. You don't need an rfc package for that. > Look at the doc-linux-html package...
Except that a package named doc-rfc will already have files in /usr/share/doc/doc-rfc (copyright and so forth), and so having others in /usr/share/doc/rfc is a little weird and unexpected. The /usr/(share/)doc/HOWTO hierarchy has a bit of history to it.
