Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes: > Thank you for writing this up!
It's my pleasure. > I'm inclined to second this, although I wonder if should is too strong > at this point and we should instead allow for either method but > document that using the same directory as the "parent" package is > preferred. That would avoid the instantly buggy issue but still set up > a transition over time. Can you show me an example (perhaps elsewhere in Policy) that shows the less-strong wording you have in mind? > We'll need a Lintian tag, etc., to actually get everything moved over. Should that be a separate bug report? > I also agree with Bill that it might be useful to say that one should > have a symlink or symlinks in the /usr/share/doc/package-doc directory > pointing to the docs in the other directory (or vice versa; it doesn't > really matter which direction the linking goes). That would also make > the transition easier. This might need more discussion; I didn't see a good consensus on that part. More bug reports, or am I getting overly picky? > > + The documentation must be installed as specified in > > + <ref id="docs-additional">. > > I think that last "must" should be a "should". Why so? It's merely saying that another section of Policy must be followed. If that section includes less-strong language, the “must” here is exactly as restrictive or non-restrictive as that other section's wording. -- \ “Teach a man to make fire, and he will be warm for a day. Set a | `\ man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.” | _o__) —John A. Hrastar | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/8739tziscr....@benfinney.id.au
