> From: Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On 22-Aug-00, 23:12 (CDT), Daniel Barclay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ... > > ... Current policy > requires that /usr/doc/<package> exist (possibly as a symlink to > /usr/share/doc/<package>). Then why don't more package implement that policy? > > Some others do but their files are so scrambled that you can't > > tell which are current, which are obsolete (because of, e.g., > > Debian clean-up of how the package works), etc., without > > reading each file. > > It is not the maintainer's job to keep a packages upstream documentation > up-to-date. Sorry, but that's the way it is. So? I didn't say it was. I didn't say that Debian maintainers should clean up upstream documentation. I just argued that in doc directory, which typically contains a mess of upstream files, there should be a file that is easily recognizable (having a standard name) as the Debian README file. > > Debian packages don't provide that orientation reliably at all. > > ls -l /usr/doc/foo > dpkg -L foo |grep bin > dpkg -L foo |grep man > dpkg -L foo |grep info > > works for *every* package. (Yes, I know it would be more efficient > to combine into one dpkg -L command, I left it as an exercise for the > reader.) If Debian really thinks that is sufficient, then this is hopeless. Daniel -- Daniel Barclay [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hmm. A little worrisome: http://www.junkbusters.com/cgi-bin/privacy http://www.anonymizer.com/snoop.cgi )
