Nicolás, my one concern: lets assume a user installs both mutt and mutt-doc, and mutt-doc installs its docs into /usr/share/doc/mutt.
User says to userself, "why is my /usr/share/doc so big?" A `du' later, and the mutt docs are the culprit. User thinks to userself, "bummer, I like mutt, but the only way to get rid of the documentation is to uninstall the whole package. I guess I should delete the docs manually." *maybe* the whole concept is contrived; but two packages installing files into /usr/share/doc/<one_package_name> seems to be begging for trouble, somewhere. If, however, we support something like a Documentation: tag in the control files, or say that all the mutt-doc style packages should install their stuff into /usr/share/doc/mutt/doc -- then I could see how this could be good. I too don't like `ls -ld *mutt*' in the doc directory, just to see what might be appropriate, so I would like to see a nice solution to this thing... :) In any event, this is not a formal objection to anything. :) * Nicolás Lichtmaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000822 19:03]: > 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. =) -- Seth Arnold | http://www.willamette.edu/~sarnold/
