On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 07:54:58PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> In doing this, I found several packages that had large quantities of
> documentation in a non-doc type package. This meant that all installs of
> said package had that documentation around.
How large? It can be filed as a bug on the basis of common sense if it's a
large percentage or just large in KB/MB.
> Additionally, we are all aware(I hope) about the naming inconsistencies.
> Some call it -doc, some call it -docs.
I think we should proclaim -doc as proper, it's shorter and more popular.
% grep-available -F Package -r '\-doc$' -s Package --count
441
% grep-available -F Package -r '\-docs$' -s Package --count
14
> Then, some place the documentation in -doc/, while others place it in
> foo/. Still others place it in -doc/, and then have a symlink from foo/.
I think they should place the docs in foo/ and only leave the necessary
stuff (changelogs, copyright) in foo-doc/, and a symlink to ../foo for
convenience.
Or whatever is consensus. Some consistency would be useful, in any case.
> Also, there is the problem that some docs depend on their foo.deb, others
> don't.
Since it's reasonable to expect that some people will just want to install a
-doc package to read the docs e.g. on a machine where their PDF viewer works
better or works at all, the dependency should be a Recommends or Suggests.
I think bugs can be filed on the basis of common sense in this case even if
the policy doesn't specifically mention it (not sure if it does, didn't
check).
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
