On 22-Aug-00, 21:02 (CDT), Nicol?s Lichtmaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Think this: Do the docs document the docs? /usr/share/doc/mutt documents > mutt, but /usr/share/doc/mutt-doc... documents... what? mutt-doc? Is a > nonsensical place for documentation, I think. It only has some sense from a > package management perspective, but that's not ok, package manage should be > invisible to the end users, and things shoould fall in the most intuitive > place... I M H O. =)
I tend to agree with you, but it's not completely cut-n-dry: 1. Consider the "I want foo-doc w/o foo": Is it ok for foo-doc to create /usr/share/doc/foo and put stuff in it? What about the /usr/doc/foo symlink -- is foo-doc going to take care of that? What if I later install foo? Who gets to remove the link? 2. What about (first example I found) the tetex situation? There isn't a tetex package, so where does tetex-doc install its stuff? (The answer seems to be under tetex-doc, with a link in each /usr/share/doc/tetex-*/ directory.) At present, it's pretty random. I would like a consistent answer to make its way into policy, but there are lots of different cases, and I don't think a simple "foo-doc installs stuff into /usr/share/doc/foo" is the best answer. One must also consider that some doc package are actually (at least partially) info files and man pages. Part of the problem is that we've conflated package docs (copyright, changelog.Debian.gz,etc.) with user docs. Steve
